It’s not a good time to be Roland Emmerich. Following controversy and threats of a boycott over the decision to focus on the plight of a fictional blond white protagonist as the hero of Stonewall, his retelling of the historic Christopher Street riots of 1969, the film opened in theaters over the weekend to blistering reviews and disastrous box office receipts, landing at 29th place among the weekend’s top-earners. According to Box Office Mojo, the period drama took in a mere $112,414 from 129 theaters for a feeble $871 per-screen average. While this news had to be depressing for the filmmaker, who partially self-financed the movie, it couldn’t have been wholly unexpected. On September 26, the movie review aggregating website Rotten Tomatoes showed that Stonewall had a 7% rating (it’s since increased to a whopping 10%), yet it has an audience score of an almost unbelievable 95%, which is a remarkable disparity between professional critics and film audiences.
Emmerich, who is to be commended, of course, for his work to raise money and awareness for homeless LGBT youth, raised hackles even more early last week for a BuzzFeed interview in which he defended his use of Jeremy Irvine as the lead character, saying that he needed a “straight-acting” protagonist so this gay rights story would hold appeal for heterosexual filmgoers. Huffington Post’s Michelangelo Signorile, a longtime and always outspoken queer rights activist, posted a note on his Facebook page that revealed Emmerich had canceled an interview with him and other journalists after the early pans of the film were published.
What, then, is one to make of the imbalance between the opinions of critics and moviegoers, as reflected on the Rotten Tomatoes tally? Are audiences so starved for LGBT-themed films that they helped jack the rating in advance or is it possible that people who saw the film over the weekend actually enjoyed it? Don’t jump to that latter conclusion too quickly, for a quick scan of the audience opinion shows that of the 41 users who actually posted reviews more than half rated the film with one star or less. Could users be manipulating the score on the site? Queerty emailed the Rotten Tomatoes publicist about this possibility but has yet to receive a reply.
As a personal aside, I spoke with a friend last week who told me that although he was aware of the scathing reviews and was not a fan of Emmerich’s other films, he planned to see Stonewall over the weekend as a way to counter-protest what he saw as trans activists trying to rewrite the events that actually took place during the 1969 riots. I’m still too aghast at his idea to follow up with him for a response.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Fortunately, though, the critical and commercial failure of Stonewall isn’t likely to ring a death knell for other LGBT-themed films. Later this year we’ll see the release of two other fact-based major movies: Freeheld, which stars Julianne Moore and Ellen Page, and The Danish Girl, with Eddie Redmayne, which has been touted as a possible awards contender. Next year Alan Poul will direct a feature adaptation of Andrew Holleran’s classic novel Dancer from the Dance. In the meantime, there’s a multitude of television series that range from sitcoms such as Modern Family to dramas like Empire to satisfy the need for queer storylines.
John Clerkin-Whitcomb
It had already been done, much better I might add, and even then was not a money maker. I worked on Milk, and in addition to a quality script and director, it also had star wattage…. Even had the film been an accurate and good one, there was no real star power to promote it or draw in audiences. Combine that with the poor reception in the LGBT press and they even turned off their seemingly guaranteed audience… A stinker in every respect. Doesn’t bode well for the chances of Dancer From The Dance being made, much less finding an audience.
David Berry
I think the reviews have been unfair. Yes, there were liberties taken. There were lots of valid points made. But it was much better than I expected given how much trash has been thrown at this film. It almost reminds me of the Al Pacino film “Cruising”. That film was HATED by the gay community but I didn’t see a lot of inaccuracies in it.
Robert Barber
Still going
Finrod
It’s got a 3 out of 10 on IMDb, which is rated by film-goers, not critics. It doesn’t quite make the Bottom 100 of all time, but it’s a disastrously low rating.
Giancarlo85
Rottentomatoes isn’t always good for user reviews…
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3018070/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1 – For more indepth audience reviews IMDB is a lot better. And it is getting 3.0 out of 10 (at the time of this post). Many who have seen it shellacked it as historical revisionism and at best just entertainment.
It wasn’t a good time of release for this film. There are just too many other top box office movies out.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/
It ranks 37th.
SportGuy
LOL, exactly what should have happened.
Giancarlo85
I must add if you want to compare this movie to other low theater “limited” release… check out “Lost in Hong Kong”… a foreign film released in just 28 theaters. It made $537,736… that’s over $19k a theater. The movie made five times the amount Stonewall did. Apparently a Chinese foreign film carries more sway despite being released in less than a quarter of the theaters as Stonewall. Disastrous numbers!
Brian
Let’s face it – Hollywood doesn’t want to touch films about male homosexual relationships. It avoids them like the plague. The liberals of Hollywood are extremely homophobic about male homosexuality.
And, no, I don’t consider lesbian or transgender films to be about male homosexuality at all. They are the complete opposite, and often fail to understand the special problems that are unique to being male and homosexual.
Giancarlo85
@Brian: LOL… bullshit. Just like they did with Brokeback Mountain and other films. You don’t know what you’re talking about. This film didn’t make money because it had a poor cast and was a revisionist film.
You don’t know anything about sexuality in general… so you really are just spouting off again, JASON SMEDS.
Hal-James Pederson
It bombed.
SportGuy
@Giancarlo85: Exactly!!
CommentByMale
ill be honest, as a Latino, Gay actor who fought for marriage equality for years, I submitted to audition for this movie in its infancy. I was kindly told there were no roles for me, and that it was all going to be filmed in Canada. I understand filming Canada was due to lower costs for filming, but I felt it was a huge blow to the US filmmaking community, especially New York City. Of course, I still stated that I wanted to be part of this movie, and that I would fly to Montreal just to read, since its my history, still nothing. Im not saying, “Oh i would’ve received a part” but at least an audition for a film where I fought in the modern day fight would have been something. I feel they weren’t open to any true grit to the Stonewall rebellion, almost as if it had to be whitewashed, but ignoring the audiences who were begging the production for it to be as factual as possible, with diversity that has existed in NYC for over a century. I hope that maybe a Stonewall movie can be revisited sometime in the future. The truth is Stonewall didnt happen b/c of 1 kid named Danny, it was a variety of people who had one commonality of being tired of treated like 2nd class citizens-something that still resonates today.
Renzo Garcia Lacherre
It was. Black drag queen not a white one…
Tracy Pope
@Giancarlo85: Brokeback Mountain isn’t a good example. That was two popular straight actors to begin with.
As for Brian/Jason/Bryan’s remark sure, I agree. To a point.
@Brian: Where your comment fails is that you gave no thought to the fact that a lot of people do rely on critiques – especially for a movie they might have no initial interest in (the trailers certainly weren’t compelling). Blaming it all on homophobia in the industry is silly.
Also, considering your first comment, your second comment was redundant. Beyond that this movie shouldn’t be just about male homosexuals. There were more than just male homosexuals involved.
Milton Appleby
http://allofusgaymen.blogspot.com/2015/09/stonewall-bombs-in-limited-release.html?m=1
Giancarlo85
I am sure there are other movies out there that are better examples.
I don’t agree with Jason Smeds (AKA Brian) at all. The guy has no clue about sexuality.
Arnold Stollar
Pacinos'” dog-day afternoon”was funny ?
ohxxx
Saw this Sunday afternoon. Myself and 3 other obviously gay men in the entire auditorium. I really wanted to like this film, but aside from the “white-washing” of history, it is just laughably bad on all counts…..but Jeremy Irvine is cute to look at….
ohxxx
…BTW, the other film called Stonewall, made in the mid 90s….is a much better version of this historical event…….
animaux
The mainstream audience is not yet ready for a positive LGBT story in cinemas, where no gays die at the end. Hardly anyone even knows what Stonewall is. Not even gay guys, especially the younger ones, of whom majority have never heard of it.
Then there was the political campaign against it. People were afraid to go see it for being accused of racism. But that was a smaller contributor to the results. In the end, it is the straight audience who decides about a success of any movie. There was nothing in this for them and they probably felt validated by the straight media’s campaign against it, which was pretending to speak in the name of the LGBT people.
tusgold
Well one it saddens me that he wouldnt try and make the damn thing historicly accurate. I hope someone with some sense would give people like me who were too young to be aware of Stonewall the legit story. I wish an ambitious producer would do a Stonewall 2.0 and talk to the people that were there. This really was an opportunity to pay tribute to some of the people that got us to marriage equality. So if it was in 1967 and say they were 25, they would be 73. Time is running out on getting first person accounts and I hope it doesnt just go into forgotten land. Im 58 and would love to see the real story. From what LITTLE I know didnt some courageous (drunk) drag queens start the ball rolling. Is there any books on this? Time to hit Amazon. We really should have more respect for these heros. I may take a U turn to Wiki. I think the gay community needs to learn our history before the breeders
animaux
@tusgold: There are many books already. People (those who survived the AIDS epidemic) have given their accounts. If you want to know the facts, read the books. It wasn’t a drunk drag queen who started it . It was many people protesting in different ways. There are conflicting accounts about it.
But if you want for Stonewall to finally enter public consciousness, become a known event inside and outside of the LGBT circles, you will support a mainstream version of the film, which uses a pop-cultural language and is youth-culture oriented.
Stonewall can never work as a serious pathetic Selma-like movie. It wasn’t a calculated, organised event. It wasn’t lead by morally impecable characters. It happened in a place where gays were victimized not only by straights, but also by other gays.
In the meantime it has become a part of our folklore and you can’t really separate it from gay culture in general, from camp, from gay stereotypes, in-jokes we all love. The previous Stonewall movie was a musical comedy, for crying out loud.
Giancarlo85
@DarkZephyr: Nobody was claiming it was an all trans event. But if you think this dreck of a movie is accurate, you need to go pick up a book. Not only is this movie historical revisionism, the script and acting are terrible. So go ahead and watch it. Your histrionical reply shows you don’t really read what people are saying at all. Oh and if a movie downright sucks that is a different matter entirely.
Bob LaBlah
@Arnold Stollar: Yes, it was very funny. Especially when they brought in his gay lover. I laughed from beginning to end.
It is sad this guy, who directed Independence Day, didnt think to do a 20th anniversary of that film by resurrecting the aliens in some way or another. I bet he wish he had gone in that direction now. Of all people he should have known that the Stonewall story simply couldn’t be done in a way where people would actually care enough to go see a movie about it. It has already been told/written about too many times. Todays narcissistic gay youth couldn’t care less about what happened a generations ago.
JessPH
I couldn’t care less about the “revisionism” and “whitewashing” (the film was INSPIRED by real events and NOT based on real events). However, i would still watch it just to see how incredibly bad and lame the movie is. It’s not as if anyone really expected this to be a good movie in the first place. I mean, it is directed by one of the worst directors in Hollywood.
Perhaps, Gus van Sant and Lee Daniels could retell the story of Stonewall next time.
Giancarlo85
Roland Emmerich is about on the level of Uwe Boll, but usually has better actors (weird Stonewall didn’t) and bigger budgets. These German film directors really should stop making movies. And he’s no stranger to making up history… one can only look at the Patriot. At least that movie had better actors.
So I knew this movie wasn’t going to be good in any sense.
AtticusBennett
many “historical” or “true story” films twist facts, liberally, and still manage to be entertaining and well-made films. Stonewall is neither of those things. it’s terribly written, ham-handed in its direction and veers wildly tonally. the actors are miscast to the point of offensiveness, and the whole thing is an insult to what Stonewall was, and IS, about.
this will not be “oh those horrid gays boycotting a piece of crap! now we’ll never get more gay films!” the problem is not savvy audiences who expect better, the problem is hack filmmakers that sh*t on history while making a film with no redeeming cinematic value.
AtticusBennett
btw – anyone else curious as to why a straight man is needed to play a “straight-acting” (VOMIT at the term…) gay man? if these “straight-acting gay men” are such a real thing, how come they’re always represented by STRAIGHT men in film and TV? yeah. exactly.
Jeremy Kinser
@AtticusBennett:
You’re 100 percent correct. I saw the film several months ago before all the bad press began but I wasn’t at liberty to discuss it here. Most audience members at that screening were seeing it without any sort of bias, just hoping for a fairly accurate recount of the riots and most were absolutely horrified at what they witnessed unfold on screen. There was a lot of unintentional laughter during many dramatic scenes. Putting aside all the “whitewashing” controversy, this is still one of the year’s most disappointing films in every conceivable way.
pjm1
I saw the movie last night. There were about 20 people in the audiences. I attended with
2 other people (all gay), and the other 2 liked it more than me; I thought it was ok but with
some major flaws.
First, the movie is real a coming of age movie about a fictional uber white bread boy (Danny) from Indiana.
Stonewall (SW) only plays a tertiary role and SW is really only about 20 minutes of the movie. Because
the fictional white bread Danny character dominates the movie — yes, the movie is whitewashed more
than a bit in my opinion.
The movie’s second theme is about street kids and their difficult (to say the least) lives. This is where
white bread Danny meets the rough and tumble street kids. The street kids are diverse,
latin, African American, down and out, hustlers, surviving, just barely. But the story really is about White
Bread so these characters are not developed and play a supporting role.
Again, what makes the movie whitewashed (disclosure, i am a white male), is the white bread Danny
from Indiana is at the forefront of the riot — Danny casts the first stone — in the movie.
The movies second theme about the difficult lives of homeless young kids (in the real world homelessness
knows no age bounds) shows how the kids live under the oppression of police and others who
take advantage of them — especially older gay predators. Some of these gay predators are the worst
types of gay stereo type. Though, as a literary device, they can show the imbalance of power, but I
am not sure such negative depictions were needed.
A final problem is with the riot itself. If you have not done a good deal of reading about the
Stonewall uprising, you will not know what is fact based and what is pure fiction. But again, the
actual “riot” is about 15 0r 20 minutes of a 2 hour movie.
If you go to the movie to see a white bread coming of age story, the movie is ok. It certainly
pulls some emotional stings. On the other hand, there are some over negative stereo types that
were just over the top. I am about our of room here.
pjm1
@Jeremy Kinser: I did laugh at some of the scenes
that were not meant to be funny. Perhaps my expectations were pretty low. The movie
is not really about Stonewall in my opinion, it is a coming of age movie. Neither I nor the
2 people I was with were horrified by the movie — though i thought it was ok and the 2 people
i was with thought better than ok but not a historically based movie.
Carol Schwab Leister
I have a question. (Again, straight woman here,so coming from a straight woman POV) Would anyone else like to see LGBT movies that are just cheerful comedies or Rom-Coms or something? I’m all for telling important stories and stuff, but I’d really like to just see a story of two people falling in love in whatever standard Rom-Com trope works, only the two people are gay. (or Trans or whatever works for the story) And if there are movies out there like that, what are they called?
AtticusBennett
the TIFF screening was an opera of awkwardness.@Jeremy Kinser:
nobody wanted to applaud. there was giggling and “oh come ON…” comments throughout. the cast and crew bowed, and applauded themselves, and the TIFF crowd gave polite-at-best very-canadian applause. like a slow golf clap when you’re trying not to wake a nearby baby.
the buzz after the screening was literally everyone saying “it’s as bad as people worried it may be, perhaps worse”
pjm1
@AtticusBennett: The box office numbers speak
for themselves as well as the critics reviews — which were mostly not so good. I did
not think the movie was that bad — i thought it was ok, it entertained me,
it entertained me as a coming of age story, but as a movie
about Stonewall — well, that it is not. The movie has lots of flaws, but, for me, I was
entertained.
redcarpet30
Really is pretty arrogant of Emmerich to think he could tell this story. There is really very little information to build a movie around (a lot of it contested, a lot of it is just eyewitness testimony). I mean, you can’t walk past a queer studies class without Stonewall being a topic of argument.
So his failure is predictable. It’s a historical event that probably should never be made into a movie. There are other gay stories to tell.
Tracy Pope
@Carol Schwab Leister: There are some available but they’re not from mainstream producers and distributors. It seems whenever a gay character is written into a major movie it’s usually for laughs (though not as bad as it once was)so that type of movie, specifically with gay lead characters, would have to be exceptional to get any traction.
Ken Spragg
Yet another picture that looks like the end of a musical number. Seriously, is this movie a fucking musical? 😛
He BGB
It was just awful. Torture. All the characters were unlikeable–thieves, disloyal friends, you name it. Every chance they had they stole even from friends. I know they were supposed to be the salt of the earth street people but if you can create a fictional hunk as the maincharacter you can make the others likeable. Also, gay guys are witty and funny. The only laugh it gotwhen i was there was the old queen’s dick joke near the beginning. It needed more humor and scenes that made you cry. The main character would NOT have given those street kids a second look in real life. Going to Columbia he would have made friends there. The director really bombed 100 percent on this one.
dracukon
@Carol Schwab Leister: Were The World Mine (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sH-ro9JkG8) is very cute and sweet!
Creig Stearne
So you don’t see it based on two minute trailer. If you watch the movie and then wish to speak you hate then so be it. But no you chose to be childish.
mujerado
@ohxxx: “…BTW, the other film called Stonewall, made in the mid 90s….is a much better version of this historical event…….”
How so? That other film centers on a white gay boy who comes to New York just in time to be involved in the riots, just like this one. Explain how it’s better.
Calebspapi
Here is my basic take on this movie and the contraversy surrounding it. With full disclosure, I am a New Yorker, Greenwhich Village raised, civil rights attorney, gay historian and Latino gay male. Movies are great and can be wonderful fun, but when they use historical names, events and or people, they must take great care. America and her people are not known for learning history, and thus learning from it. So, we repeat it to disastrous effects. There is debate as to who threw the first object, but I’m Damn sure it was not, and would never be a Danny type. There are still individuals from that weekend who are willing to tell what really happened. Obviously this director never wanted to know the truth as it conflicts with his world view.
This director could have made the exact same movie, but with a different name, and been viewed in a better light. I have not, and will not see the product, so I won’t speak to its quality. But, as for the white washing and erasure of those people now identified as trans, he did us all an unnecessary disfavor. We people of color are not a burden on a perfect white gay world. Like you, we are contributers, archetechs and doers. This needs to be known, acknowledged and remembered by people of all races.
When you are a white male, straight or gay, you see yourself everywhere. You are the illogical standard. When it’s true, I take no issue. But our erasure from this community is literally killing us. So you can say, lighten up…it’s just a movie, but this is not what you say when you are ignored or erased from history.
Finally, this director is a dick. He wanted to make a movie about himself, but didn’t have the balls to claim it. If this representation was so important, why didn’t he put this charector in any of his action films? Stonewall is a part of our collective history and culture. It needs to be respected.
Giancarlo85
I’m glad people were not expecting much. Emmerich is a lot like Uwe Boll. But the truth is Boll actually had a good non-fictional film in “Attack on Darfur”. It seems Emmerich couldn’t even get a non-fictional movie right and should stick to making moves about space aliens.
enfilmigult
@mujerado: Well, for one, the gay white boy in that movie actually dates the Latino drag queen he meets in New York, and without it being considered a particularly big deal that he’s doing so.
Avery Alvarez
There’s this saying, “people get the government they deserve”
Well, the LGBT “community” gets the media it deserves.
Every here wants to play the victim “boo-hoo. Society has been mean to me and you don’t understand. You owe me empowerment. You owe me self-worth. You owe me validation.”
Nobody owes you anything, b!tch. Get over your entitlement.
And when everyone here isn’t playing the victim, they’re demanding to play the role of the hero. “My group started Stonewall! I have no legitimate proof of this, but I’m ALL the minorities, so that automatically makes me right”
This whole thing just showed what a farce the LGBT “community” is.
david dirdam
Yes, every time I see an entry on this movie and the accompanying controversy, I’ll have this posted:
“…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…”
https://books.google.com/books?id=j04jLSvGNSMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=david+carter+stonewall&hl=pt-BR&sa=X&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAGoVChMIuvyXhcGMyAIVQiGQCh1eSg7s#v=onepage&q=“almost none”&f=false
david dirdam
Link above failed, so try this: tinyurl.com/olgsmus
Giancarlo85
@david dirdam: Oh nice. More historical revisionism.
pjm1
@david dirdam: I have read Carter’s book
and many others and saw the movie the other night. Please see my post above about
why, in my opinion, the movie was White Breaded. The movie is not really about
Stonewall, it is about white bread Danny, a fictional character, who both threw the
first brick and also shouted “gay power” — so white bread did it all; the fictional character
white bread was so angry — after just two months in NYC he lead the revolution!
Not only that, but the other characters in the movie, were all just so impressed by
White Bread Danny for starting the revolution — they were in such awe of white bread.
So, yeah, it was whitewashed.
Tackle
@david dirdam: You and your co-harts can keep repeating that White lie, until you are blue in the face. And anyone who believes that David Carters book is not White washed, is kidding themselves. The Stonewall Inn 1n 1969, was evenly a mix of Black, White and Hispanic.
On the night of the raid, it was mostly, people of color, transsexuals, transvestites and lesbians. The gay White men that you so proudly speak of, did NOT show up , until the riots were way underway, and word spread. Reaching a peek the following day with over 1000 people. Of course it’s going to be mostly White/White men, because America is mostly White, therefor, the LGBTQ community is going to be mostly White.
Funny how you, David Carter do not want to acknowledged who was responsible, and gave all those gay White men the courage to show-up, AFTER the riots were well underway… The few Black, Hispanic, lesbian and transgenders,who are marginalized by the larger gay community, and who were brave enough to stand ground, and fight back, is a lot more braver than a 1000 White men who showed up later. If it wasn’t for those in the bar that night, fighting back, those White men would never have shown up.
And about David Carter’s book, and that you and so many love to take as the absolute truth. Those who say it’s 100% accurate, correct, flawless, has no as to how books are package, for their desired demographics. This book was packaged for, and it’s targeted audience was/is gay White men. Hence the cover. This book was not written for anyone other than gay White men to be the heroes, and receive most of the credit. So you can play on words, by writing, ” Marsha P Johnson, may have even thrown the first—-: (my example). But by writing it that way, you avoid making her hero of, or the spark that started the riot. This is often done in publishing. Omission of the actual truth, to appease and not offend your targeted audience. And David Carter, like many writers, are at the mercy of their editors.
Mark Mathabane touched on this for his book, ” Kaffer Boy in America”. About how he had to leave certain things out, to not make the Whites seem too monstrous. His editor had a targeted audience in mind, and it made the New York Times best seller list. The late Martin Bernal, editor decided on the title of his first, three volume book should be called, ” Black Athena” rather than
“African Athena” because of a certain demographic (Blacks) he/she wanted to reach. While loth by some Whites, and many conservatives, Martin Bernal is greatly admired, and his work is considered classics, by some in the Black community. The idea that some would think that David Carters book is infallible, is a joke.
pjm1
@Tackle: So you are making a bunch of factual
statements and discrediting a well documented book which was followed up by a
PBS documentary based on the book.
What is the source of your information and facts? That is, books, articles, documentaries,
etc. I would appreciate knowing. Thanks.
pjm1
The best documentary about Stonewall as told from
first hand accounts. Please note that the scenes in the PBS
doc were recreations — it is a must see for anyone interested in
the history around Stonewall.
http://cinema.solarmovie.is/link/play/4782391/
Tackle
@pjm1: Dude you got to be kidding me! PBS. Really!
When have they become an authority based on fact? Lets see, Numerous documentaries on Jesus, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, all never existed. And as you said, the PBS documentary is based on David Carter’s book, which seems to be the White mans bible of the events at Stonewall. To speak against, one is committing a mortal sin. And the point of my post, was not to dispel David’s book. Have you even read David’s book? If so, then you would know, that he leaves a lot of loose ends open, and a lot of speculation and innuendo. With that, how can it be taken as absolute fact?
pjm1
I have read Carter’s book and many others.
His book obviously cannot be taken as fact. It it a well researched book that
does leave open ends and recognizes inconsistencies. And what are the books
and documentaries you recommend on the topic? The ones that set the record?
pjm1
@Tackle: By the way, are you saying
that Jesus, Abraham, etc. never existed? And therefor, how could anyone
legitimate make a documentary about Jesus b/c a documentary about a non-
existent person is impossible, and therefore, PBS has no credibility?
Is that your point?
JerseyMike
LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tackle
@pjm1: As far as the topics about Stonewall, here is a major problem , as to why people should be careful in declaring it 100% fact. As you know: David himself stated that he did 10yrs of research on the book. Stonewall happened in 1969. David’s on and off research started around 1994. 25yrs later after the event. People can barely remember an event a yr later. But 25yrs later??? At 25yrs later, people will recall the best they can.
And who would I recommend for this topic: Read the accounts of
Marsha P Johnson: who was inside the bar that night, having a private B-day in her honor.
Storme DeLarverie: Who reportedly scuffled with police, and was hit over the head with a baton, and reportedly yelled to the crowd, ” aren’t you gonna do something?”
And Miss Major Griffin-Gracy who is still alive, and gives a different account to some of the events than that are in David’s book.
And yes I’m saying that Jesus, Abraham of the Bible never existed. No my point is not that PBS has no credibility. I was pointing out to you that just because PBS is covering something, does not make that event a fact. In the case of Jesus, Abraham, etc, a documentary can be done, presenting them as fictional historic figures, who changed the world, and still shape the daily lives of many around the world…
AndYouWillDeal
I saw the movie yesterday and thought it was great. I think the hatred comes mostly from bitter “queens of color” who love whine with their cheese. For them it’s only about race and nothing else, who cares about who threw the first brick? A butch lesbian is portrayed as being the first to resist police arrest, and a trans black woman is shown as standing up against a mafia kingpin, while the homeless LGBT kids (and you cannot possibly tell me that couldn’t have included at least one “straight acting” white kid who might have been kicked out of his house by his parents) were the ones who fought against the police and started the ball rolling.
Giancarlo85
@pjm1: You live in total fucking fantasy land if you think white people were mainly the ones behind Stonewall. You can’t fix stupid. Thanks for proving that.
@AndYouWillDeal: Oh really? I saw it and thought it was poorly acted and poorly directed. WHat do you have to say about that? And on top of that, it’s historical revisionism.
pjm1
@Giancarlo85: at some point we all want
to raise the bar for ourselves. your comments reflect who you are and not who
other people are.
AndYouWillDeal
@Giancarlo85: You are exactly the kind of “bitter queens of color” I’m referring to.