Roland Emmerich, idiot: ‘Stonewall was a white event, let’s be honest’

wenn24784492

This ^ is Roland Emmerich, the director of Independence Day: Resurgence. He’s German, but he mostly works in America on big, special-effects-heavy films like the one he’s currently promoting. But last year he tried his hand at a smaller film, a pet project that he’d been wanting to make for a while: a film about the famous Stonewall Riots, in which cops raided a gay bar in NYC and the LGBT community just had enough, and they started a riot. The Stonewall Riots went down in June 1969, and that’s one of the big reasons why Pride parades usually take place in June. “Stonewall” has also become a symbol of LGBTQ rights and pride around the world.

Emmerich’s film, Stonewall, was utter garbage though. Historical records of the real event prove that the riots were multi-racial, with gay men, gay women and transgender people taking part. Emmerich’s film chose to base the story around a fictional white cisgendered guy played by Jeremy Irvine. Because even films about the LGBTQ community have to be made “palatable” to the film going audience, right? The film was widely panned, poorly reviewed and barely seen. Well, Emmerich was asked about the reaction to his film during an interview with the Guardian this week. His response was… no bueno.

His 2015 film Stonewall ignited the ire of LGBT rights groups, incensed that this depiction of the 1969 Stonewall riots was seen from the point of view of a white male, relegating black and Latino activists to background figures. The critics were equally outraged.

“Stonewall is perhaps even worse than some feared it would be,” seethed Vanity Fair’s Richard Lawson. “More offensive, more whitewashed, even more hackishly made.”

Emmerich sighs at the memory of his passion project’s reception. “My movie was exactly what they said it wasn’t. It was politically correct. It had black, transgender people in there. We just got killed by one voice on the internet who saw a trailer and said, this is whitewashing Stonewall. Stonewall was a white event, let’s be honest. But nobody wanted to hear that any more.”

[From The Guardian]

Even the Guardian called bulls—t on “Stonewall was a white event, let’s be honest.” The Guardian added this: “Reports and photographs from Stonewall in fact indicate that the riots were started by gay, straight, trans, white, black, and Latino protesters.” Again, nearly every historical account of Stonewall has it as a multiracial and trans-inclusive moment. Many even believe that it was a black trans woman who threw the first brick, but in Emmerich’s film, it was the white cisgendered dude who threw the brick. Because relatability!!!

So, is this just Hollywood’s problem in a nutshell, or is this just specific to Roland Emmerich? Like, I think most Hollywood producers – white guys – wouldn’t even blink if they heard “Stonewall was a white event.” They wouldn’t even think to question it or look beyond their narrow “everything is a white event!” scope. But I think most people would be smart enough not to say it in an interview? Maybe I’m giving Hollywood producers too much credit though.

wenn24782897

Photos courtesy of WENN.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

38 Responses to “Roland Emmerich, idiot: ‘Stonewall was a white event, let’s be honest’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. lower-case deb says:

    this guy who made 10,000BC
    where huge fluffy wooly mammoth roamed the deserts of alien-built ancient egypt…

    • SnazzyisAlive says:

      That monstrosity was his fault?
      Now that I know that … OF COURSE he’s an idiot

    • Carmen says:

      He’s also responsible for that idiotfest “2012” which should tell you everything you need to know about him.

    • I Choose Me says:

      Ah that sh-tfest. Where the leads were of course, white and pretty with perfect teeth and hair tousled just so.

  2. MonicaQ says:

    I really don’t have words for this. It’s more like Tazmanian Devil slobbering and noises followed by a facedesk.

  3. Almondjoy says:

    🤔🤔🤔

    BYE ROLAND

  4. GoodNamesAllTaken says:

    Idiot.

  5. Neelyo says:

    Wow so he’s even dumber than his movies. I didn’t think that was possible.

  6. Lucy2 says:

    Why on earth would you not make this film, of all films, a true ensemble? A story about a group of people coming together to fight back against oppression and strive for includion– yes let’s focus on one person! And lets make him a white male!

  7. Marty says:

    I want to nut punch this guy.

  8. Sam says:

    How can you not pick up a single book or other source about Stonewall and think it was a “white event?” I am very straight, thank you and not especially well-read about it, and even I’ve seen, multiple times, that black and Latino people, particularly trans people and drag queens, were a dominant force in the riots. Like, even I know that. It’s mentioned in most histories of the event. For him to argue this, he’s either simply actively racist or ignorant to a disturbing degree.

    • Sigh... says:

      What’s mind-blowing and jaw-dropping is that he DIDN’T HAVE A SHORTAGE OF INFO that require long hours in the dark recesses of a library or even in front of a computer screen to do and get research. This wasn’t soooo long ago that there are no “survivors,” like WWII. He could have a PLETHORA of POVs, witnesses, and 1st hand accounts to weave several more realistic narratives, but he SLAPPED together a movie like no one involved is still ALIVE and can see and be disturbed to disgusted by this.

  9. Anon says:

    The pride events are white events, that’s why major cities still have to have their Latino prides and black prides because we’re still excluded. We still have to deal with the racism inside of the glbtqwxyz community.

  10. QQ says:

    I have a Plethora of seats and Floor space really for this Mediocre White Man to sit down, he can take with him the Michael Bay Derivative ass Moving he is peddling as well.

  11. poppy says:

    Scheißekopf

  12. Sullivan says:

    Schmuck

  13. NewWester says:

    Did this man even do any research into Stonewall? Maybe he should stick to making disaster movies.

    • Turtle says:

      No, he didn’t. It was a WHITE event! What’s odd is that the script was by Jon Robin Baitz, who is openly gay and white but certainly knows his stuff.

  14. eggy weggs says:

    Also? He was 20 years behind this “Stonewall,” which, if memory serves, was quite good. AND not all white, cis-gendered.

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114550/

    • Turtle says:

      First time I saw a performance by Guillermo Diaz. He was AMAZING. If you like him from “Scandal,” you have to see him in this. I can’t remember the last time I walked out of a theatre with people around me saying, “Who was THAT?” Pre-internet, too.

    • Ange says:

      I did a project on that version at uni and 20 years later even I remember that the movie showed a fair bit of diversity and the main character dated a trans woman. Granted I think he left her for a more ‘palatable’ partner while he came to terms with his sexuality but still….

  15. Bridget says:

    I sincerely don’t get it. How was it a passion project for him to make a movie about Stonewall, when he clearly understands so little about it?

    • Sunglasses Aready says:

      @Bridget. ‘Passion project’ is the magic word in Hollywood. Once that word is used no one checks whether you know the project or not. The backers just pass the money over and mark it up as a tax loss later if things do not work out.

      • Bridget says:

        Wait, I just remembered. Emmerich has wanted to be taken seriously outside of his explodey movies (that stupid Shakespeare movie anyone?) and the “passion” part wasn’t actually telling the story of Stonewall, but the chance of being in the Oscar conversation with an issue movie.

    • Bob says:

      Emmerich is a gay man who was born in 1955, which makes him old enough to have witnessed a great deal of social change and be personally appreciative of the advances brought on by the gay rights movement. His movie is atrocious, and some of his creative choices reflect an extremely narrow and sad mindset about what mainstream audiences require to find the subject acceptable. But I think it’s really going overboard to not give him credit for having a genuine passion for telling this story.

      • Bridget says:

        Born in 1955… in Germany. You’re talking about a social movement that took place in another country, and yet still assuming that he has a huge connection to it despite the fact that he genuinely seems to understand little of the event in question. “Stonewall was a white event” indeed.

      • Bob says:

        Emmerich has lived and worked in the US for 30 years, he is a beneficiary of the social movement. It’s not a stretch to imagine he is grateful for the effort expended.

        “despite the fact that he genuinely seems to understand little of the event in question.”

        Have you seen the movie? It actually has a lot of accurate details about what went down at Stonewall according to contemporary reports. I mean, I can’t minimize what a bad movie it is on multiple levels. But it’s obnoxious watching people who haven’t even seen the movie and are operating under the delusion that what happened at Stonewall hasn’t been vigorously debated for decades make comments about it with this air of confident superiority.

        “Stonewall was a white event” is a stupid thing to stay, but it’s about as historically accurate as the people who are trying to claim Marsha P Johnson as a trans woman.

  16. Alex says:

    No just no

  17. The Eternal Side-Eye says:

    So for all those people who always mumble, “Well if Blah blah didn’t do this movie the script would have just sat there collecting dust, isn’t that worst?”

    NOPE. THIS is worse. Disregarding people again and again and again because they were born the wrong skin tone to favor and even invent white saviorrs to idolize. If they’re not white just make their skin tone lighter, as close to white as possible, either way make sure the actual persons of color and identity are forgotten. I am SO glad that film was crucified.

    Screw this jackass.

    • Sigh... says:

      “So for all those people who always mumble, ‘Well if Blah blah didn’t do this movie the script would have just sat there collecting dust, isn’t that worst?’ NOPE. THIS is worse.”

      EXACTLY! Or like the Saldanas out there who try to pull a “If *I* don’t/didn’t tell the story, it would never be told,” then after all is (stupidly) said and (poorly) done, the TRUE story still isn’t/hasn’t been told (at least not by them)!

      Pshhhh…

  18. this reminds me of when the Love Wins legislation won out and NUMEROUS media and social media outlets published or made viral a photo of a cartoon of 3 white (like color white) males standing on podiums with their fist up wearing a rainbow medal/necklace or something of that nature….(backstory that iconic imagery/pose was based on the black empowerment fist up that a brilliant black athlete posed and got dinged on back in the late 60 or 70’s)

    …. I was appalled be I thought WOW…. even on a disenfranchised group (LGBT)…. POCs are disenfranchised, over looked, non-existent….. I was just floored…. Like you cant be too diverse…. youre ONLY BLACK or LAtino..or ASIAN…. and then we have LGBT or Feminist or whatever discriminated group and that typically means (white—you know the normal) …ughhhh sooo sad man…