Stonewall

The film is derivative, as well as whitewashed.

There are so many factual goofs, when it comes to clothes, music, etc. The filmmaker needed to spend some time doing research and fact checking.

I also find fault with the film centering around a kid from Kansas. The uprising was started by Puerto Rican and African American drag queens, and there is strong support that the first police resistance was by a lesbian, not some white football player from the mid-west.

I suggest watching the British 1997 film, which really feels so much more authentic.

I was not previously aware of the negative reviews of this film. And that is a good thing, since they might have deterred me from watching. Having now seen the film, and having done so as A) someone who is old enough to remember firsthand what it was like to be gay in middle America in 1969 (far worse than what is depicted in this film!), B) someone who was disowned and thrown out by his parents at age 17 for being gay, C) a long-time gay activist, and D) a professional historian, all I can say is that the critics need to get past the fact that this is *not* a dispassionate, objective documentary about the Stonewall Riots. Rather, it is a fictionalized evocation of the social, cultural, and political circumstances that eventually triggered the riots. And in that regard, I think the film did an outstanding job. Those born after about 1970 largely have no reason to remember bar raids, police payoffs, anti-cross-dressing laws, or even the overt involvement of organized crime in the operation of many gay bars. And that is in large part thanks to the bravery of the "deplorables" (to use a word circulating in this election cycle) who finally said, "Enough is enough." From my perspective as an elderly gay man who continues to be utterly dumbfounded (and delighted!) by the social changes that gay militants have achieved over the past half-century, I can only say "Thank you" to the makers of this film for at least trying to tell the story in a passionate, subjective manner. If you want cold, emotionless history, tune in to the National Geographical Channel. If you want some sense of what it *felt like* in 1969 (and for many years thereafter), see this film. Is the film "flawless"? No. But despite a few flaws, it is an excellent film.

I watched Stonewall last night and did not find it to be the horrible film I expected. It was not a great film either, a solid 6 out of ten. It was visually interesting, the dialog was a bit awkward and a little boring but IMO it accurately portrayed the feeling of 1969/70. Most of the characters were poor LGBT runaways living on the streets who were POC, transgender, dykes/lesbians and a variety of ethnicities. All the cops were white, mostly portrayed as assholes. Was the movie flawed? Absolutely. Perhaps the biggest flaw was calling the film Stonewall. Still I think it is worth seeing. If you can get past expectations of it being a historically correct documentary and watch it as a coming of age/out story about a young man from the country running to the city (which many did), at the end you can get a real reminder why we celebrate LGBT Pride today.

Greetings again from the darkness. Dramatized versions of real life events are always a bit tricky, and hindsight often proves it's best left to the documentary format. However, sometimes, a dramatized version helps us more easily relate to, and empathize with, those who were involved. That seems to be the approach taken by director Roland Emmerich in his re-telling of events so important to him and the LGBT movement … the Stonewall Riots of 1969.

The Stonewall Riots of June 1969 are often cited as the beginning of the Gay Liberation movement. Of course, there had been many previous clashes between gays and police, as discrimination was so extreme that these folks were labeled as mentally ill, and it was actually unlawful for gays to be hired for many jobs. On the streets of many big cities there existed a melting pot of minorities and the LGBT community. Many were young and homeless, and did whatever necessary to survive. So how best to tell this story? Director Emmerich and writer Jon Robin Baitz put blonde, white, Midwestern, pretty boy Danny (Jeremy Irvine, War Horse) front and center. How insulting to those involved.

To his credit, Emmerich does cast actors of various races to many roles, and he does seem to treat this as a sincere tribute or homage to those street kids who finally pushed back. Unfortunately, it's these characters that seem to be the drag on the story. Despite such names as Queen Cong, Little Orphan Annie, Quiet Paul, and the inclusion of real life activists as Marsha P Johnson (Otoja Abit), Bob Kohler (Patrick Garrow) … and other key players like Ed Murphy (Ron Perlman) and Deputy Seymour Pine (Matt Craven) … the film comes off more like a staged musical sans music. The closest thing to a real character is Ray, played with aplomb by Jonny Beauchamp ("Penny Dreadful").

Having the Columbia University-bound pretty white boy as the focus might make it easier for mainstream audiences to connect, but it skims over the real struggles going on at the time. We see Danny at home with his worried mother, observant little sister (Joey King), and macho football coach/father (David Gubitt). Everyone is uncomfortable over what is not being said, and the breaking point occurs when a tryst with the star quarterback becomes public knowledge. Just like that, Danny is booted from home (Indiana, not Kansas) and lands on the streets of New York. The comparisons to Dorothy (gay icon Judy Garland) and the Land of Oz are obvious, and repeated numerous times for those a bit slow on the take.

Christopher Street and the Stonewall Inn are the main settings. The mob involvement is noted, as is the desperation of the community, the use of flop houses, and the long-standing "quiet" demonstrations. Even the practice of gays trying to "fit in" to society – to prove they belong – by wearing suits and acting "normal" is addressed. The riots are reduced to a single evening in the movie, and of course, the pretty white boy gets to toss the first brick. As a 'roots of the movement' film, it's hard to believe this film won't create more anger and frustration than thanks and awareness. Fortunately, there are many exceptional books and yes, documentaries that provide a better perspective on the events that occurred more than 45 years ago. We do see the first Gay Liberation Parade held the following year in honor of the riots – a tradition that continues today. The closing credit sequence catches us up on the key activists, and even provides a startling statistic: 40% of today's homeless youth are LGBT.

Gay themed films are n abundance right now and (lesbian couples, transgender stories, more gay characters in many films) so it seems only natural that yet another film be made about the beginning of gay rights in the US. STONEWALL does that and despite the emphasis on political corruption attempting to steal the thunder from the brave gays who initiated the change to Gay Pride it works for the most part.

Many viewers will avoid the film because of the depiction of gays as being homeless, feminine street hustlers – too much so that it becomes a distraction form the other aspects of the story – but at least the message and the dates and the history are there. The plot revolves around the 1969 Stonewall Riots, the violent clash that kicked off the gay rights movement in New York City. The drama centers on Danny Winters (Jeremy Irvine), who flees to New York after an aborted coming out with Joe (Karl Glusman) and being ousted by his homophobic father (David Cubitt), leaving behind his sister Phoebe (Joey King). He finds his way to the Stonewall Inn, where he meets Trevor (Jonathan Rhys Meyers) before catching the eye of Ed Murphy (Ron Perlman), manager of the Stonewall who colludes with corrupt police and exploits homeless youth. Danny becomes close to a group of Nellie hustlers – especially Ray (Jonny Beauchamp) – and it is his association with this gay element that he eventually joins and fights for gay rights.

The cast is strong, the script by Jon Robin Baitz is less than impressive, but director Roland Emmerich manages to make the blend of history and human tragedy credible. Not a great movie, but the intentions are worthy.