# Stonewall: The Whitewashing **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [September 24, 2015, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stonewall-the-whitewashing/732355 "2015-09-24T00:12:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2015, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stonewall-the-whitewashing/732355/1 "2015-09-24T00:12:16Z")
I just read this blog piece: [Stonewall Is Terribly Offensive, and Offensively Terrible](http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/09/stonewall-review-roland-emmerich?mbid=social_facebook) Essentially, the criticism against the new movie **Stonewall** is that it does not accurately the folks behind this pivotal moment in civil rights. While there were certainly white cisgender gays in the riots, they were not in the forefront. Rather, it was led by transgender women and lesbians of color. These folks are actually well-known. But they are not portrayed in the movie. The hero is a hunky masculine white guy, who seems to drop in from Indiana just in time to save the day for all the swishy misfits and comical “side-kick” racial minority characters. So there’s some outrage about this. There have been calls for boycotting the movie. And I think the outrage is 100% understandable. People of color are fucking tired of being whitewashed out of American history, just so that a movie will be more profitable in the box office. And having transgender heroines would have been very timely, given the consciousness of the public right now. I’m curious what gay Dopers think about all this. Are you going to see the movie? If so, are you excited about it? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2015, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stonewall-the-whitewashing/732355/2 "2015-09-24T00:37:45Z")
The name “Roland Emmerich” on a movie is enough to keep me out of the theater all by itself. I’m not at all surprised he fucked up the story of Stonewall. He’s fucked up every other story he got his hands on; no surprise that he fucked this one up, too. I mean, this is a guy who couldn’t make a good movie about a giant lizard stomping on a city. Is anyone really shocked that he _also_ sucks at other film genres? ---
**Author:** ![Battle\_Pope](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@Battle\_Pope](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Battle_Pope)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2015, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stonewall-the-whitewashing/732355/3 "2015-09-24T00:48:01Z")
[http://www.littlewhitelies.co.uk/features/festivals/tiff-2015-stonewall-31826](http://www.littlewhitelies.co.uk/features/festivals/tiff-2015-stonewall-31826) > [@](#): > > In Stonewall, Roland Emmerich does to the dignity of New York’s burgeoning LGBT community what he did to the White House in Independence Day. I doubt anyone is really surprised at this. ---
**Author:** ![Roderick\_Femm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/roderick_femm/32/14875_2.png) [@Roderick\_Femm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roderick_Femm)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2015, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stonewall-the-whitewashing/732355/4 "2015-09-24T01:23:52Z")
Not interested, not going. When I first heard earlier today that there was such a movie (no details, only that it was in some way about the Stonewall riots) I says to myself, I says, “I’ll bet they’ll get the history wrong ten ways from Sunday.” Sounds like I was right. From what I’ve read about it, Stonewall was a very nuanced and complex series of events, and probably no US movie maker is capable of doing them justice. ---
**Author:** ![bienville](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@bienville](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bienville)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2015, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stonewall-the-whitewashing/732355/5 "2015-09-24T02:55:37Z")
That blogger doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Clearly, the [2015 film _Stonewall_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_(2015_film)) is meant to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the [1995 film _Stonewall_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_(1995_film)) which was a historically inaccurate and whitewashing account of the events at the Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village in 1969. Emmerich has taken great pains to emulate the woeful historical inaccuracies of the 1995 film so as to properly mark this, the 20th Anniversary. ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2015, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stonewall-the-whitewashing/732355/6 "2015-09-24T03:34:46Z")
Why make a film commemorating the anniversary of another lousy film, rather than accurately commemorating the event itself? I won’t be in the audience. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2015, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stonewall-the-whitewashing/732355/7 "2015-09-24T03:58:15Z")
> [@panache45](#): > > Why make a film commemorating the anniversary of another lousy film, rather than accurately commemorating the event itself? Joke. ---
**Author:** ![Ukulele\_Ike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/df788c/32.png) [@Ukulele\_Ike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ukulele_Ike)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2015, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stonewall-the-whitewashing/732355/8 "2015-09-24T14:17:58Z")
A very good joke, too, thank you, **bienville.** I’ve read lots of fat books on gay history: gays in cinema, gays in NYC, gays in Wiemar Berlin, etc. Currently reading _Behind the Screen: How Gays and Lesbians Shaped Hollywood 1910-1969_. Oddly, I’ve never read a book on Stonewall. Would it have been common in 1969 for “transgender women and lesbians of color” to hang out in a West Village gay bar full of white guys? ---
**Author:** ![amaguri](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/49beb7/32.png) [@amaguri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amaguri)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2015, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stonewall-the-whitewashing/732355/9 "2015-09-24T15:04:41Z")
You gotta wonder what they thought of their imagined audience. I mean, you’d think the topic alone sort of limits the mass appeal and then to turn it into an artificial, pandering mess seems like exactly the wrong thing to do. -shrug- ---
**Author:** ![Jophiel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jophiel/32/66_2.png) [@Jophiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jophiel)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2015, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stonewall-the-whitewashing/732355/10 "2015-09-24T15:21:21Z")
> [@amaguri](#): > > You gotta wonder what they thought of their imagined audience. I mean, you’d think the topic alone sort of limits the mass appeal and then to turn it into an artificial, pandering mess seems like exactly the wrong thing to do. -shrug- I’d see it as the opposite: You get more “mass appeal” audiences if it’s not _too_ scary and filled with “others”. Hunky white guys are always in demand though. Sure, you turn off some picky people who want historical accuracy, but you scare off less average Americans. (I’m not condoning this, just saying it seems pretty obvious why you’d whitewash the story) ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2015, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stonewall-the-whitewashing/732355/11 "2015-09-24T15:26:37Z")
> [@amaguri](#): > > You gotta wonder what they thought of their imagined audience. I mean, you’d think the topic alone sort of limits the mass appeal and then to turn it into an artificial, pandering mess seems like exactly the wrong thing to do. -shrug- Straight while men and women who are interested about the gay rights movement (but not necessarily wanting to get too deep into the history) is the likely audience. And, those folks would go watch a movie more if a white dude is the main character (it’s the reason that in Orange is the New Black, Piper was the ‘way in’ so to speak to get people to care about stories of black and Hispanic women in prison) ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2015, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stonewall-the-whitewashing/732355/12 "2015-09-24T15:30:07Z")
> [@Ukulele\_Ike](#): > > Oddly, I’ve never read a book on Stonewall. Would it have been common in 1969 for “transgender women and lesbians of color” to hang out in a West Village gay bar full of white guys? It wasn’t. [The Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots#Stonewall_Inn) gives a brief run-down of why the place was what it was - long story short, the mobsters who owned it saw profit in catering to a clientele that would have gotten kicked out or arrested at other bars ---
**Author:** ![Big\_Norse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/big_norse/32/9954_2.png) [@Big\_Norse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Big_Norse)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2015, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stonewall-the-whitewashing/732355/13 "2015-09-24T15:32:24Z")
> [@Jophiel](#): > > I’d see it as the opposite: You get more “mass appeal” audiences if it’s not _too_ scary and filled with “others”. Hunky white guys are always in demand though. Sure, you turn off some picky people who want historical accuracy, but you scare off less average Americans. I agree they’re dumbing it down and whiting it up to appeal to middle America who are curious about this newly heard “gay rights” thing, but who might be put off with the actual truth. Emmerich is proud to say his star is white and “straight acting” so the audience can relate to him. > [@](#): > > “Danny is a very straight-acting kid,” [explains Emmerich](http://defamer.gawker.com/there-arent-enough-bricks-in-the-world-to-throw-at-rola-1731974702), who says Danny serves as the eyes of the audience. “They can relate more strongly to him and through Danny’s eyes they’ll experience the more extreme situations depicted in the film. I hate directors who insult the intelligence of their audience from the get go. ---
**Author:** ![amaguri](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/49beb7/32.png) [@amaguri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amaguri)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2015, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stonewall-the-whitewashing/732355/14 "2015-09-24T15:32:47Z")
> [@Jophiel](#): > > I’d see it as the opposite: You get more “mass appeal” audiences if it’s not _too_ scary and filled with “others”. Hunky white guys are always in demand though. Sure, you turn off some picky people who want historical accuracy, but you scare off less average Americans. > > (I’m not condoning this, just saying it seems pretty obvious why you’d whitewash the story) Well, no, I get that. It just seems like “mass appeal” doesn’t exist for this movie, no matter what. If it had a trans lead or a black lead, that’s just a stronger “Not interested!” but at the end of the day it’s still a “Not interested!” either way. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2015, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stonewall-the-whitewashing/732355/15 "2015-09-24T15:40:45Z")
I thought this was going to be a rant about Stonewall Jackson. I would support a rant about that. But I also support your complaints about this movie too. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2015, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stonewall-the-whitewashing/732355/16 "2015-09-24T16:10:19Z")
> [@amaguri](#): > > Well, no, I get that. It just seems like “mass appeal” doesn’t exist for this movie, no matter what. If it had a trans lead or a black lead, that’s just a stronger “Not interested!” but at the end of the day it’s still a “Not interested!” either way. But there are more people who will say “not interested!” about a movie about blacks and Hispanics than a movie about white people, regardless of their sexuality. Gays can be just as racist and transphobic as anyone else. Yesterday I watched a youtube video critique of the film, and a lot of the comments in response were blatantly racist. Presumably they were written by gay white guys (or some very self-hating people of color.) Perhaps they are also the kind of gay guys who think they are superior to the “flaming” gays that march in pride parades–the freaks who supposedly make it harder for mainstream gays to catch a break. Yet, there wouldn’t even be such a thing as a “mainstream gay” if it weren’t for the flamers. That’s what I take away from the Stonewall riot. It’s a shame the movie misses the opportunity to educate and correct misconceptions. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Lowry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Sam\_Lowry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Lowry)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2015, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stonewall-the-whitewashing/732355/17 "2015-09-24T16:22:29Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > Essentially, the criticism against the new movie **Stonewall** is that it does not accurately the folks behind this pivotal moment in civil rights. While there were certainly white cisgender gays in the riots, they were not in the forefront. Rather, it was led by transgender women and lesbians of color. These folks are actually well-known. But they are not portrayed in the movie. The hero is a hunky masculine white guy, who seems to drop in from Indiana just in time to save the day for all the swishy misfits and comical “side-kick” racial minority characters. Not only does the main white character, Danny Winters, throw the first brick, it’s handed to him by a black character. And apparently it’s not because he’s angry and fed up with harassment like the real life people, it’s also because he just had a fight with his boyfriend. It’s amazingly tone-deaf. Also from the reviews, it sounds like the rest of the movie is just wildly off. It sounds more like one of those instructional short film strips that were made in the 60s warning normal people about the dangerous homosexuals. > [@amaguri](#): > > You gotta wonder what they thought of their imagined audience. I mean, you’d think the topic alone sort of limits the mass appeal and then to turn it into an artificial, pandering mess seems like exactly the wrong thing to do. -shrug- I also got the impression that the white main character is a bit of a Mary/Marty Sue, where Roland Emmerich can somewhat do a self-insertion of himself into the movie, and what it would have been like if he had been there. This movie is apparently a passion project for him that he’d been wanting to make for a while.