Setting the Record Queer: Stonewall - Those Who Forget History Are Doomed to Repeat the Same Myths About it

I can recall back when I was a young teenager having breakfast one morning when my mom, while flipping through the newspaper said, "I see that Independence Day is rated PG-13".

"Uh uh," I replied, not really paying attention. I had seen trailers galore up until that point and my snobbish teenage self (go figure) had decided that the movie had looked boring and derivative.

"Do you want to see it?" my mom asked.

"No," I answered, although at this point my curiosity was peaked a little. Why would my mom of all people want to see what was essentially a sci-fi shoot-em-up? Well, a shoot-em-up where aliens shoot up major cities with flaming walls of flame.

She shrugged, and said, "Well, I thought it might be educational".

The advertising at the time for Independence Day had been so ubiquitous with giant alien space craft blowing up human civilization that it took took me a moment to realize what was going on here.

"Um.... mom," I replied, "you should know that the movie Independence Day isn't actually about the American Revolution..."

Skip ahead 18 years and the openly gay director of Independence Day Roland Emmerich, is now promising to make a movie about an actual historical event. Specifically the Stonewall Riots that launched the LGBTQ rights movement.

When it comes to getting the history of the Stonewall Riots "correct" I am leary of Emmerich for reasons that have nothing to do with his reputation as a purveyor of derivative action flicks, but because of Emmerichs' involvement in the film Anonymous which relays the story of Shakespeare but is set in an alternative universe where the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship happens to be true. For those unfamiliar with the theory, it posits that William Shakespeare was not the "real" author of the plays, sonnets, and poems now attributed to him. Long story short, it's a conspiracy theory that has little basis in actual historical facts.

What might be the Osfordian Theory's worst sin though, is the way it erases (possibly unintentionally) some of the best evidence that William Shakespeare experienced same sex desire. By this I mean the conspiracy theory here ultimately sets out to explain why Shakespeare dedicated his romantic sonnets to a man by eliminating the possibility that the dedication was romantically inclined. As such the Oxford Theory posits that the dedications are evidence for the conspiracy, rather then the icky possibility that one the finest English writers ever (or so English scholars say, I could barely understand him personally) had same sex desires.

What I find troubling at this point in the production (which is set to begin filming this summer) is that thus far it appears to focus on white, gay characters. The IMDB page for the movie lists Jeremy Irvine, Calab Landry Jones, and Karl Glusman as those who have been cast thus far. In addition, the plot is described as:

A young man's political awakening and coming of age during the days and weeks leading up to the Stonewall Riots.

Note that it says "man". Not "trans man". Not a "drag queen". Just "man". Also is it just me or does it sound like this is the plot of the 1995 Stonewall film directed by Nigel Finch? I realize that being about the same event could easily lead to similar plots on their own, but Emmerich sounds like even his historical epic is going to be a rip-off.

Whatever issue Emmerich has with being derivative, historically speaking this is a problem because it means that the next Stonewall Riot flick is going to be regurgitating the erasure of transgender/transsexual and gender non-conforming people of color from queer history. In addition, there is the history of transgender rights activists, such as Sylvia Riveria and Martha P. Johnson, also being erased from the Stonewall Narrative.

Even the films' Facebook page gets in on the act by stating:

"Stonewall" will tell the story of the men and women of the modern Gay Rights movement and the establishment where it all took place: The Stonewall Inn.

And in casting calls for extras for the movie, the only word that shows up is "gay". Not LGBT, not Queer, gays only. Bisexual, lesbian, and Transgender, Transsexual, and gender non-conforming folks need not apply.

Normally, I wouldn't make a big deal out of mere word choice, but the erasure of transgender, transsexual, and gender non-conforming folks in addition to people of color specifically from the Stonewall Narrative has gone on for too long and is simply too extensive to be allowed to pass without comment.

In any case, one can only hope that Emmerichs' Stonewall has more in common with the actual riots than his movie about Will Smith saving the world from aliens had with the American Revolution. Too bad the prospect of that actually happening looks about as good as the world ending in 2012.

Classic Review: Do the Right Thing (1989)

Do the Right Thing
Director: Spike Lee
Writer: Spike Lee
Cast: Ossie Davis, Ruby Dee, Spike Lee, Giancarlo Esposito, Danny Aiello, Bill Nunn, John Turturro, Paul Benjamin, Frankie Faison, Robin Harris, Joie Lee, Miguel Sandoval, Rick Aiello, Samuel L. Jackson, Rosie Perez

Overview
A slice in the life of a community picture, Do The Right Thing tells the story of racial tensions in a New York City community. Spike Lee raises many esoteric philosophical questions about the appropriateness of using violence to address systemic oppression, while also managing the difficult task of grounding them in our gritty reality.

Synopsis
It's the hottest day of the year when the film opens. Mookie (Spike Lee) is a delivery boy for Sal's Pizzeria and constantly finds himself at odds with Sal's oldest and most definitely racist son Pino (John Turturro). Da Mayor (Ossie Davies) is the town drunk and is attempting to make peace with Mother Sister (Ruby Dee) who scorns his shadow. Meanwhile, Buggin' Out (Giancarlo Esposito) is organizing a boycott against Sal's Pizzeria following his discovery that there are no photos of black Italians on the Wall of Fame that Sal keeps at the Pizzaria. Overseeing all of this is Mister Señor Love Daddy (Samuel L. Jackson) the local radio DJ and two police officers (Miguel Sandoval and Rick Aiello). As the day proceeds, tensions gradually bubble to the surface until exploding into a riot that lays bare the ugly belly of racism.

The Queering
It's generally accepted by now that the LGBTQ rights movement got it's start following the Stonewall Riots, a violent push back against police arrests and the lack of effort to curb direct anti-queer violence. Prior to that, similar riots also took place, notably, the now forgotten Compton Cafeteria Riots. In the seventies, the White Night Riots occurred following the acquittal of Dan White of the most serious charges he was charged with regards to the murder of Harvey Milk and Mayor Moscone.

None of the riots that LGBTQ people have engaged in have ever been particularly well publicized or talked about in the mainstream media, probably because mainstream societies way of dealing with LGBTQ people is to pretend that we are weak and fay and all that or that we don't exist. The image of us rioting and breaking stuff does not help to perpetuate that narrative. Racially motivated riots on the other hand, generally receive more attention, not only because it is harder to pretend that people of color do not exist, but also to help perpetuate the narrative that people of color are SCARY!

However, the larger question remains, is violence an appropriate response to systemic oppression? It is easy to answer in the negative. It is even easier to point to the success of non-violent tactics used in various civil rights movements across history from Ghandi to Martin Luther King Jr. and Bayard Rustin. It is even easier to point to the failures of violent revolutions to effect positive systemic changes. The French Revolution gave rise to chaos, which lead to the rise of Napoleon and the eventual reinstatement of the French Monarch. The Russian Revolution went from Leninism to the even greater disaster of Stalinism. Large scale violence has a nasty habit of not only begating more violence but the sort of economic turmoil that also tends to breed even greater suffering than the conditions that existed pre-violent revolution.

But what of violence that takes place on a smaller scale? What of individuals and communities so oppressed that they have no other truly viable options? And what of violence that is not directly in response to circumstances where the perpetrator is not in any immediate danger? Let me make it clear, I do not condone violence on any level. But at the same time, I must admit that the historical record leaves little room for doubt that few actions other than a violent uprising, could have created the conditions that led to the birth of the LGBTQ rights movement.

Spike Lee contends that criticism of Mookie from white critics of his throwing the garbage can through Sal's Pizzaria's window, it is because white people consider white property to be of greater value than the lives of black people. However, it bears noting that Mookie's actions might have been more easily justified if he had thrown the garbage can through the window to draw the attention of those beating Radio Raheem (Bill Nunn) while the assault was taking place. Throwing the trash can through the window when Mookie actually does, accomplishes nothing and the riot that followed only end up placing the lives of the other black characters in greater jeopardy than they would have been otherwise. The problem is, destroying Sal's property carried with it no possibility of bringing Radio Raheem back from the dead. As it is, it's a purely destructive form of protest.

Let me make myself clear, I am not condemning Mookie's actions either. The thoughtless death of a member of a community is certainly justification for extreme action, even if that extreme action is destructive and accomplishes little.

There are no easy answers to the problems and questions that Spike Lee raises and he rightfully makes little effort to provide definitive answers. The competing philosophies of both Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X are cited throughout and direct quotes from both show up in the end credits.

From a technical perspective, Spike Lee brings all of his considerable talent to the table. Filmed on a shoestring budget, Spike Lee manages to accomplish a lot with few resources. Arguably, the low budget helps a bit with creating a sort of gritty realism that so many Hollywood films sprain themselves trying to capture. Ultimately though, it is Spike Lee's vision and hard work (along with a highly accomplished cast) that make the film work like it does. The cinematography through the use of "hot" colors, successfully manages to highlight the devastating heat wave and make visual the non-visual phenomenon that the characters are experiencing.

Do the Right Thing put Spike Lee on the map and while much of his later work would fail to accomplish what he achieved here, I still think of his more recent films (particularly Miracle at St. Anna and She Hate Me) are criminally underrated. While one may not always agree or like what Spike Lee says here, what he says is worth listening to. Do the Right Thing is a film that cannot not, nor should be, ignored.

Recommendation
The best way to Do the Right Thing is to see it.

The Rating
**** out of ****

Trailer


Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.

Silver Demon: On Creating a Queer Superhero

To look at the mainstream media's depictions of LGBTQ characters is an exercise in watching a never ending stream of victims, villains, with a few sidekicks here and there and the occasional nod to the fact that some of us are "normal" folks with day jobs, families, etc.

As far as I can tell, there are almost no queer superheroes in existence. Well actually technically there are a few. Recently, the X-Men recently got to have a big gay wedding and one of the Green Lantern incarnations got to come out. I also came across a YA novel Hero by Perry Moore

To be frank, it can be exhausting evaluating queer orientated media. In the past two decades there has been an uptick in depictions of LGBTQ individuals. Some of these have been quite good, while others have a slew of problematic elements associated with them. But the queer superhero is, for all intents and purposes, practically an endangered species. Which is why I wanted to create one.

Initially I waffled on whether or not to include homophobia in my story and/or having the character deal with their sexuality. One of the earliest versions of the main character had them repressing their attraction to other men and this in turn causing them to lose their super powers. The character would then have only regained their powers when they had come out and acknowledged their true identity. This idea eventually went off and died where all bad ideas should go to die.

Then I had the character existing in a world where homophobia did not exist (or at least was not referenced and had little impact on the story itself). This idea was eventually abandoned after I decided that my two main characters should meet at a bar called The Stonewall Tavern, a reference to the real life Stonewall Inn.

I forget exactly why, but this eventually led to a whole lot of other changes, namely the decision to incorporate homophobia and transphobia directly into the story itself. This in turn resulted in setting the main part of the story in 1969. Given that the main characters still get to meet at a place the Stonewall Inn, most people can probably accurately guess one of the major elements of the climax.

Since Batman got Gotham and Superman got Metropolis, I thought it only fair that my characters got their own city to run around in. Thus the City of Noche was born. At this point things might have gotten a bit out of control. By creating a fictional city, I was able to create a world that would allow me to metaphorically build the concept of the Isophyls directly into the story itself. This also meant I could have the Stonewall Inn overshadow the Compton Cafe, while sitting across the street from an institution I called the White Knight Tavern. Rioting in my story? Never! Ignore my shifty eyes least they deceive you! *cough*

This was probably the one part of the story I went overboard with. As I talked about earlier, I used historical figures as the basis for several characters. But I didn't stop there. Streets, business, various locations, pretty much everywhere I could reasonably do so became a reference to some element of LGBTQ history. Whether it be in reference to a significant protest, a tragedy, or our communities contributions to society, be it scientific advancement, governmental, economic, the military, technology, the arts, religion, or civil rights, if I could find a place in the story to acknowledge LGBTQ history, I did. My partners copy of Queers in History by Keith Stern became so dog eared and worn that he ended up bequeathing it to me.

Of course there is the question of what kind of personality or job would be most appropriate for my characters. I had something of a debate with myself about how masculine or feminine to make my characters. I did not wish to perpetuate the stereotype that all gay men are feminine sissies, but the problem is that in rejecting this stereotype, means enforcing the unfortunate notion of the "feminine = bad". I got around this issue by making the main cast of characters as diverse as possible.

Some people might ask the question of whether or not the world is ready for a LGBTQ superhero story, particularly one of such a nature as one I have created. Personally, I think this is the wrong question to even be asking. The never ending tide of queer victims and villains I mentioned at the beginning, requires a counterpoint in order to be turned. Ready or not, the world needs queer heroes.

Queer Review: The Boys in the Band (1970)

The Boys in the Band
Director: William Friedkin
Writer: Mart Crowley
Cast: Kenneth Nelson, Frederick Combs, Cliff Gorman, Laurence Luckinbill, Keith Prentice, Peter White, Reuben Greene, Robert La Tourneaux, Leonard Frey

Overview
Perhaps one of the more divisive queer films ever, The Boys in the Band was initially criticized upon release for it's cast of self loathing, unhappy gay men. Recent years have been more kind to it, with some critics calling for a re-evaluation of it's deptiction of pre-Stonewall gay life (the riots occurred while the film was in production). At the end of the day, The Boys in the Band best works if viewed as a product of it's time.

Synopsis
Michael (Kenneth Nelson) is hosting a birthday party for fellow queer Harold (Leonard Frey) when he receives a call from his old college roommate, Alan McCarthy (Peter White) who is upset about something and wishes to speak with Michael immediately. In spite of calling again to say he won't show up, Alan does so anyways. Alan's conservative nature causes tensions to erupt between other members of the party. There are the lovers Hank (Laurence Luckinbill) and Larry (Keith Prentice) who are dealing with Larry's wandering eye. Donald (Frederick Combs) a close friend of Michael's who is currently in therapy. Bernard (Reuben Greene), the token black guy. However, it is with effeminate Emory (Cliff Gorman) that Alan clashes with the most sharply. The evening climaxes when Michael forces everyone to play an embarrassing telephone game where the participants call the one person that they truly love.

The Queering
There are two differing sides or opinions The Boys in the Band. One side argues that it is an unfortunate relic of it's era in that portrays gay men as vicious, self loathing freaks. Michael and Harold both suffer from self esteem issues and spend most of the time they're on screen together exchanging scathing barbs, many of which cut deep. Donald talks about being in therapy.

The other side argues that The Boys in the Band in fact gives a rather nuanced glimpse of queer life in the mid-1960's when persecution of gay men was at it's height in the United States.

Context is everything. Most importantly with regards to what is onscreen and for the world in which The Boys in the Band was made and into which it entered. When The Boys in the Band went into the production, the stage play was generally regarded as being ahead of it's time for it's sympathetic portrayals of gay men, in that it dared to treat them as actual human beings. But then the Stonewall Riots took place and the resulting gay liberation movement demanded more of it's films than what The Boys in the Band offered.

Historically speaking, there is another issue worth considering. Namely that there has always been an underlying tension between more feminine/fey gay men and those that are genuinely butch. It is a tension that stretches out from before Adolf Brand and Magnus Hirschfield feuded over the merits of queer culture promoting masculine or feminine identites. The Castro Clone look was in direct response to the gay = feminine stereotype. Today, the bear and twink subcultures both exist with varying degrees of animosity.

It was this very same tension that fuels much of the films drama, just as it fueled the ensuing criticism. Note how wide the spectrum of feminine and masculinity that the characters inhabit. On one end is the conservative and butch Hank, who drinks beer and teaches Math, not English for a change. The other end is occupied by Emory, who is the most flaming member of the ensemble.

It is Emory's swishy ways that leads to him being violently attacked by Alan, just as the character of Emory has been criticized. Yet Emory is also the least self loathing character. Insofar as Emory is presented as being unhappy, it is because of unrequited love, not because he hates himself.

Certainly there are queer men just like Emory who do in fact exist. Why then should they not be portrayed on screen? Considering just how diverse the make up of the cast of characters is in The Boys in the Band, Emory's femininity is not an issue.

Which leads one to an inevitable conclusion in that there is an uncomfortable alignment behind the attitude that causes Alan to assault Emory and certain criticisms that tend to be brought up any time a gay movie character gets their swish on.

In my opinion, the fact that The Boys in the Band is problematic, doesn't change the fact that it's one of the most progressive films of it's era and the fact that it's one of the most progressive films of it's era, doesn't mean that it's problematic elements can be ignored. At the end of the day, trying to figure out if the positives outweigh the negatives (or vice versa) is a rather futile exercise.

Recommendation
The boys in this band do not always create the most harmonic or delightful melody but this particular performance is well worth seeking out for lovers of queer cinema.

The Rating
*** out of ****

Trailer


Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.

Queer Review: Stonewall (1995)

Stonewall
Director: Nigel Finch
Writer: Rikki Beadle Blair. Based upon the novel by Martin Duberman.
Cast: Guillermo Díaz, Frederick Weller, Brendan Corbalis, Duane Boutte, Bruce MacVittie, Peter Ratray

Overview
The final film of director Nigel Finch, Stonewall is unfortunately a muddled mess of a movie that tells the story of the events leading up to the legendary Stonewall Riots.

Synopsis
Matty Dean (Frederick Weller) is an activist who has just arrived in Greenwich village looking to be a part of a movement that will create equal rights for gays and lesbians. Once there, Matty meets up with La Miranda (Guillermo Díaz) and the two begin a tentative romance. Matty also joins the Mattachine Society and befriends Ethan (Brendan Corbalis). This leads to an ideological conflict of sorts between the more conservative elements of the gay liberation movement, symbolized by the Mattachine Society and the radical flaming queers, represented by La Miranda. From there, the plot moves along in spurts and phases before coming to that fateful night and the inevitable riots that jump started the queer rights movement.

The Queering
It is unfortunate that a movie about such an important historic event is ultimately such a dramatic mess and unable to generate any significant plot momentum. There are many isolated moments and individual scenes that work in their own right, but never come together to form a coherent narrative. Most of the characters are well developed (to a point), but there is too much disconnect between them and the Stonewall Riots themselves. What I am getting at is that a compelling story could have been made featuring the individuals who actually participated in the riots, such as Sylvia Rivera. And when Matty Dean goes to the Mattachine Society, why should he not get to meet Harry Hay?

In short, that is the sum of all that is wrong with Stonewall. Take away the name Stonewall and the Mattachine Society and could have been a generic queer riot that could have occurred anywhere. If Nigel had dropped all pretence that this was about the iconic event itself and simply allowed these characters to develop within their own story, then I might have appreciated this effort a bit more.

One element that does work is the doomed love affair with the extremely closeted Vinnie (Bruce MacVittie) and his lover, the adopted Mother of the Stonewall Drag Queens, Bostonia (Duane Boutte). I would have loved to have seen these two given their own story. On the other hand, the love triangle that develops between Mattie, La Miranda, and Ethan felt forced. I suspect that the only reason for it's existence was to give heft to the intellectual debate between the conformity advocated by the Mattachine Society and the radical queer anti-assimilation position staked out by the flaming drag queens.

Beyond that, there is little worth talking about. The acting is somewhat variable with the strongest performances given by Guillermo Díaz as La Miranda, the sassy and fierce drag queen who refuses to cry and Bruce MacVittie as the conflicted manager of the Stonewall Inn. The musical numbers that the drag queens lip sync to and serve as a sort of greek chorus, are fun to watch at the beginning but become grating through overuse.

In the end, Stonewall is a disappointing effort. Had Nigel given his characters their own story, rather then trying to hammer them to fit the events of the Stonewall Riots, he could have succeeded in making a more memorable and compelling motion picture.

Recommendation
Recommended with qualifications. Those who will not mind a watered down version of what happened at the Stonewall Inn, may find some value here, otherwise, there is little reason in seeking this out.

The Rating

Trailer


Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.

Setting the Record Queer: Sylvia Rivera and Other Myths of Stonewall

As many may already know, June is "Gay Pride Month" or "LGBTQIA Pride Month" or whatever queer term is in vogue at the time. President Obama has of course officially declared June "LGBTQ Pride Month". The reason for June being pride month is that the Stonewall Riots occurred on June 28th, 1969. They took place at the Stonewall Inn, a gay bar that was raided by the police, resulting in those being targeted by the raid to fight back. Sylvia Rivera is the individual sometimes credited with throwing the first blow.

Over the years, the image of the Stonewall Riots has gradually grown to become the cornerstone event in the gay civil rights movement. It is almost literally "the" event that everyone credits as starting the path of queer liberation.

Originally, I had intended to do a straightforward article on the Stonewall Riots, but a couple of historical details I came across recently made me rethink that. First off, it almost goes without saying that Stonewall was not the beginning of the queer rights movement. It was not even the first violent queer uprising. There are two events that pre-date the Stonewall Uprising. One is the Dewey Lunch Counter Sit In and the other is the Compton Cafeteria Riot.

The Dewey Lunch Counter Sit In took place in May 1965, more than four years before the Stonewall Riots. More importantly, it featured primarily trans African American protesters. The Compton Cafeteria Riots took place at a Compton Cafeteria located in the Tenderloin District of San Francisco and that riot too primarily featured transgendered/transvestite participants.

Now what does all have to do with Sylvia Rivera? Sylvia Rivera was a trans woman of Puerto Rican and Venezuelan heritage. What made her famous, was the fact that she was one of the instigators of the Stonewall Riots. She worked actively during her life to promote queer rights, particularly the rights of transgendered and transsexual individuals. This activism was highly controversial though and she frequently clashed with the more mainstream gay activist groups such as the Human Rights Campaign.

According to queer critic Michael Bronski Rivera declared the following a short time before her death, "One of our main goals now is to destroy the Human Rights Campaign, because I'm tired of sitting on the back of the bumper. It's not even the back of the bus anymore — it's the back of the bumper. The bitch on wheels is back."

From reading several sources regarding Sylvia Rivera, I find myself with the image of a flaming queen, ready to set the rest of the gay rights movement on fire. Anger appear to have been the foundation of Sylvia Rivera's crusade, particularly against the marginalization of trans and people of colour within the LGBTQIA community.

Now I need to be clear here, there is a distinct history of such marginalization of anyone who is non-white and gay and lesbian within the gay and lesbian community. Sylvia Rivera herself is one such example of this marginalization. Already, her memory seems to be fading. I complimented the documentary Stonewall Uprising for it's comprehensive coverage of the riots, but I have no memory of Rivera being mentioned, in spite of the key role she played. Furthermore, I found no article on Sylvia Rivera in the book Queers in History by Keith Stern, which also fails to mention Ruth C. Ellis.

The historical narrative that places increasing emphasis on Stonewall as the one and only beginning of the gay rights movement furthers this erasure of non-white gays and lesbians by forgetting the earlier events that whose primary participants were black and/or trans. Sylvia Rivera's elimination from any historical narrative creates even more such whitewashing. I question any movement that has shown the sort of willingness to forget its own history as easily and quickly as the Queer Movement has. When forget history, we forget the very basis of our own identities.

Jessi Gan perhaps put it best in "Still at the Back of the Bus": Sylvia Rivera's Struggle (which I highly encourage others to read):

Mainstream gay politics' narrow, single identity agenda situated Rivera on its margins, and viewed her memory as both manipulative and dispensable. By contrast, Rivera's own political affinities, while fiercely resisting cooperation remained inclusive, mobile, and contextual. Her political practice, informed by a complexity situated life, built bridges between movements, prioritizing the project of justice above arbitrary political boundaries.

Further Reading:

"Still at the Back of the Bus": Sylvia Rivera's Struggle
Stonewall and Beyond: Lesbian and Gay Culture
Wikipedia Stonewall Entry
The 1965 Deweys Lunch Counter Sitins
Wikipedia Compton's Cafeteria Riot Entry
Sylvia Rivera Law Project, "Who Was Sylvia Rivera"