We reported yesterday about the anger at the trailer for Stonewall, which had many up in arms accusing the movie of attempting to whitewash history, and replacing queer people of color with a white, cisgender gay man (played by Jeremy Irvine). As we suggested, it might be a little early to judge the movie, as we’ve only had a single trailer so far and no one has actually seen the full movie to see how it actually handles the story of the riots of summer 1969.

Director Roland Emmerich agrees (unsurprising), as he’s issued a statement, saying on Facebook, “When I first learned about the Stonewall Riots through my work with the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center, I was struck that the circumstances that lead to LGBT youth homelessness today are pretty much the same as they were 45 years ago. The courageous actions of everyone who fought against injustice in 1969 inspired me to tell a compelling, fictionalized drama of those days centering on homeless LGBT youth, specifically a young midwestern gay man who is kicked out of his home for his sexuality and comes to New York, befriending the people who are actively involved in the events leading up to the riots and the riots themselves.

“I understand that following the release of our trailer there have been initial concerns about how this character’s involvement is portrayed, but when this film – which is truly a labor of love for me – finally comes to theaters, audiences will see that it deeply honors the real-life activists who were there — including Marsha P. Johnson, Sylvia Rivera, and Ray Castro — and all the brave people who sparked the civil rights movement which continues to this day. We are all the same in our struggle for acceptance.”

Jeremy Irvine also felt compelled to respond via Instagram, particularly picking up one of the things that got people the most angry – that it looks like his character threw the first brick of the Stonewall riots, when it’s believed that in real-life it was a trans woman of color. He says, “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.”

While many people have already made up their mind about the movie, dismissed it and really don’t care what either Irvine and Emmerich have to say (despite the fact none of them have actually seen it and only have hearsay to decide precisely how it tells its story), there are other more moderate voices which are currently being drowned out, who feel that by creating controversy now we may end up ruining a chance to bring the story of one of the most pivotal moments in gay rights – including the importance of  trans* and people of color – to a mainstream audience.

However both sides of the debate may want to wait until some people have actually seen the movie and can judge it on its own merits, not on just a two minute trailer. Perhaps it is as bad as some people are suggesting, but at the moment we really don’t know.

From the moment it was revealed that Roland Emmerich’s upcoming Stonewall movie would centre around a white, cisgender man, played by Jeremy Irvine, there were murmurs of discontent, as central to the riots of 1969 were trans* people of color, and so there was concern the movie would whitewash the birth of modern gay rights.

While the likes of Emmerich have attempted to address these concerns (at least obliquely), the moment the trailer hit a couple of days – which put Irvine’s character front and centre, with people of color and trans* people on the sidelines – some people got very angry and they’re already calling for a boycott.

For example, a petition has been started, which says, ‘To all considering watching the newest whitewashed version of queer history. It is time that black and brown transwomyn and drag queens are recognized for their efforts in the riots throughout the nation. From the preview alone, we know that will not be happening. Majority of characters casted are white actors, cis men play the role of transwomyn, and folks who began the riots do not seem to be credited with such revolutionary acts.

‘WE ARE CALLING A BOYCOTT OF STONEWALL. Do not throw money at the capitalistic industry that fails to recognize true s/heros. Do not support a film that erases our history. Do not watch Stonewall. Tell your own history! Use social media to recall what you know to be true of Stonewall. Film your own short films. Make videos, write poems, sing songs. CONTINUE TO TEACH TRUE HISTORY.’

While you can understand the frustration and anger, it seems a little early to call for a boycott, as no one has actually seen the movie yet. Although unlikely to mollify the critics, it has been suggested that Irvine’s character is mainly used as a gateway to the Stonewall story and to characters a general audience may not easily immediately empathise with (even it is questionable whether they should pander to such prejudices, even if it might seem to the makers to make commercial sense in order to get more people into the cinema in the first place). However, the fact the synopsis is keen to point out it’s a fictionalised take on the true-story certainly gives us pause.

The petition certainly seems to be prejudging the movie based on only a short preview, although there are real questions to be answered, as pointed out in the article 5 Tweets That Sum Up Why People Are Upset About Stonewall.

The likes of Marsha P. Johnson, Silvia Rivera and Stormé DeLarverie are undoubtedly central to the true story the film is based on, and hopefully Stonewall can do justice to them and people like them who helped fight back against the prejudice of society, and who certainly weren’t all white, cis men.

It has also been hinted at that Irvine’s character doesn’t actually directly start the riot, but instead starts out as a timid, rather wasp-ish character, who is inspired by the diverse people around him in New York in 1969 to become more active and proud, and that it is the actions of those others that teaches him to stand up and be counted. However we will have to wait and see exactly how the movie handles the story and whether it does completely white-wash the Stonewall riots.

The film is out in the US on September 25th.

If you want to know a bit more about the true story of Stonewall versus the film’s trailer, it’s well worth taking a look at Matt Baume’s take below: [Read more…]

We’ve come a long way in regards to the depiction of LGBT characters on the screen, but despite the success of Brokeback Mountain and a couple of gay-related movies making waves each year, it’s still extremely difficult to fund films where sexuality is the core of the story.

Even someone like Roland Emmerich – who can usually get $100 million plus budgets together to make films like 2012 and The Day After Tomorrow – found it almost impossible to get his planned take on the Stonewall riots funded. You’d have thought with a story people have heard of and a director as well known as Emmerich it wouldn’t have been tough, but it was.

Roland has been telling Vulture about the difficulties, saying, “It was an uphill battle, but we finally did it. We wanted to do it in New York on location, and that failed miserably because it was so expensive.”

He also wanted to ensure it was an ensemble story, but that added extra diffifculties.”If you can cast a central character with one or two famous actors, you have a good chance to get the movie financed,” he says, “but in my case, I knew there was not really one central character in the Stonewall riots.”

Emmerich also had something to say in response to criticisms that have already surfaced about the unfinshed film, based on the fact the synopsis suggests the events of Stonewall will be seen through the eyes of a young, white character called Danny (Jeremy Irvine) – leading to accusations of white-washing and ignoring the trans* people who were central to events in New York in 1969. However, he insists that while Danny may be the way into the story, the movie isn’t ignoring the the diversity. “I think we represented it very well,” he says. “We have drag queens, lesbians, we have everything in the film because we wanted to portray a broader image of what ‘gay’ means.”

It’ll certainly be interesting to see how he does handle it, and hopefully the critics will wait until they’ve seen the movie before writing it off. Emmerich certainly seems devoted, as it’s rumoured he found it so difficult to raise the funds to make the movie through normal channels that he ended up providing some of the budget himself. The film’s out in the US in September.