simardcasanova’s avatarsimardcasanova’s Twitter Archive—№ 6,458

                                    1. Let’s be honest: Stonewall by @rolandemmerich is actually a *good* movie about the Stonewall riots - where the gay liberation movement started in 1969 🏳️‍🌈 Especially for a straight audience.
                                  1. …in reply to @simardcasanova
                                    The movie shows absolutely *everything* about being gay in 1969: the anti-gay propaganda (the school movie), the rejection (by the father, by the school), the need to hide (the sex scene at the farm, forbidden gay bars), the youth homelessness, the prostitution to survive...
                                1. …in reply to @simardcasanova
                                  ... the costs and risks of prostitution (being beaten, being « captured » by a criminal organization, the tears, the fear), the HATE (the death of Justin), the attitude of the police (homophobic, violent), the social pressure (getting married to a woman while you love a man)...
                              1. …in reply to @simardcasanova
                                ... the cynism of the criminals (how the Stonewall is run by the mafia) and probably other things I’ve missed. IT’S ALL IN THE MOVIE.
                            1. …in reply to @simardcasanova
                              Some said the movie didn’t depicted enough non-white, non « straight-acting » characters. Did those people actually SAW the movie? It’s full of those characters! And many of them are important characters.
                          1. …in reply to @simardcasanova
                            And yes, straight people are appealed by straight-acting characters (what a surprise...) : huffingtonpost.com/entry/stonewall-straight-acting_us_5602bf50e4b08820d91af82d Maybe you don’t like that, but *it’s a fact*. And the way Roland Emmerich tried to use it is actually pretty clever.
                        1. …in reply to @simardcasanova
                          First, using the « white All American symbol » of the football player in a small city located in the Midwest is brillant. Why? Because it ensures the audience immediately identifies with him (at least a US audience). You’ll give a fuck to what happen to him because of that.
                      1. …in reply to @simardcasanova
                        Second, the movie isn’t full of straight-acting characters, only the hero is. Do those people know about the Trojan horse strategy? You put a straight-acting character to appeal a straight audience and you use him as a « bait » to show *a lot* of non-straight-acting characters.
                    1. …in reply to @simardcasanova
                      Sidenote: not every gay is effeminate. And I don’t understand why telling the story of a non-effeminate gay man is so horrifying to some. THERE’S NON-EFFEMINATE GAY MEN AS WELL.
                  1. …in reply to @simardcasanova
                    I am one of those weird animals and trust me, it’s not because I’m not effeminate that it’s easier to be gay.
                1. …in reply to @simardcasanova
                  Gay Midwest football players (and other clichés) can have a hard time dealing with their homosexuality too, and I absolutely don’t understand why this issue shouldn’t be addressed. There’s no « rankings » in suffering. ***END OF THE SIDENOTE***
              1. …in reply to @simardcasanova
                Third, yes the hero is a white football player, but he also has a story. His angst is tangible (that « Gay power » scream is frightening), his relationship with his best friend is complex and subtle, and so on. He’s more than just a cliché to appeal straight people.
            1. …in reply to @simardcasanova
              To conclude: telling the story of the LQBT+ community to « straight » people *is* important. They are 95% of the population. They are the opinion surveyed in the polls who support more and more LGBT+ rights.
          1. …in reply to @simardcasanova
            Think about Brokeback Mountain: I’ve read dozen of stories of straight men crying while watching this movie because they realized what’s love between two men look like. Who do you think made some of these people change their mind about gay marriage and other gay rights?
        1. …in reply to @simardcasanova
          Maybe speaking to straight people is not the strategy you would’ve picked, but why not? There isn’t only one unique strategy to fight for the LGBTQ+ rights. And reaching out straight people *do* make sense to me.
      1. …in reply to @simardcasanova
        What @rolandemmerich tried could have worked if people actually saw the movie and thought a bit about it before saying it’s a pile of crap. It’s at the end pretty sad to see the LGBT+ community shooting its own foot because the film wasn’t supposedly « pure enough » for some.
    1. …in reply to @simardcasanova
      So I do recommend Stonewall, especially if you want to show the history of the LGBT+ community and/or if you care about white gay football players who are kicked out by they parents and have a hard time to get back on their feet...
  1. …in reply to @simardcasanova
    (And many thanks to @CinemaDurendal for bringing this movie to my attention through his retrospective on Roland Emmerich! Great job, as usual!)
    1. …in reply to @simardcasanova
      (I forgot, here’s the link of @CinemaDurendal ‘s video (in French): youtu.be/b0hR0u6yGqc)