Is This Vandalism?

[Edward]

I guess it is vandalism. They were not organically supposed to look like that.

[Anocxu]

Well..
If you and I are discussing this event that took place thousands of miles away..
I guess they were successful at making a statement..

They thought it through..
They picked the perfect subjects.. In the perfect setting.

I guess you and I could go back and fourth on a million ways it could have been done "After The Fact.."
It will not make a difference now..

Vandalism..?
If someone "dragged" out my artwork.. I'd be pissed.
On a lighter note..
The artwork is white washed bronze statues..
The damage can be repaired easily..

Now..
Couldn't they just move mannequins to a dumpster easily?
If they inserted a bunch of "Dragged out" mannequins into that setting..
Wouldn't it look like a typical L.A. mansion party?
..I'd definitely wanna join in..

They got the attention..
Probably a hundred "logical" dollars in damages..
You and I are buzzing with opinions..

They succeeded..

[Emiliano]

yes, he is. he is also someone audiences will be able to identify with more, and someone they can see as a role model more. and you need a central character like that, in order to create a successful film, whether in terms of revenue or critical acclaim or both.

it's not really any different from most other films, unless the story specifically requires a black/trans/etc lead character. this isn't unique to gay-themed films. the general audience who goes to the movies and buys films in Europe and the US and Australia is predominantly white. if you want to make money in the film industry and be a success you can't do without a lead white male in the western world. that's the way things are.

i wouldn't be interested in seeing it if it had a black or trans lead, or the story centered around them.

if you want black or quasi-black characters you'd have to make films for Africa or go to Bollywood. Africa isn't an option since filmmakers are not capable of generating sufficient income (not to mention get their investment back) from making films for its population. China and Japan have their own industries for their own populations that work there. the math is very simple.

otherwise, since Emmerich is the director i have great expectations for it. i hope he can pull it off since it's not exactly his usual cup of tea.

First, thank you for sharing your point of view. You said a few things that caught my interest, and I'd like to discuss it further with you.

As we both mentioned, it is overwhelmingly modeled in film and tv that it takes a white (at the very least) male (preferably) character to tell a "universal story". Anything too far outside of that gets a "special interest" sort of label. But when it comes to a historical event where people of color and trans people played central roles, how is it appropriate to create a fictionalized white character as a stand in?

I cant deny any of that. Thats how its been. But I don't feel that under any circumstances, thats how it should continue to be.

If we are to defend this by saying it is what makes the (white, cis) audience comfortable and interested, then why even bother making the character gay? Would it not make the (straight) audience more comfortable to see a handsome straight man step in to help the poor, oppressed gay people out of their plight and then get the girl in the end? The white savior is certainly a popular theme in film, why not create a place for the straight white one too?

I would say that a film that is seeking to highlight and tell the story of the events and people that led to the Stonewall Riots would require a central black, trans woman character. Just as a film like Selma required a central black male character.

I also think that comparing the American film industry to those that exist in Asia or Africa (Nigeria does have a big movie industry) is a bit troublesome because America is incredibly more diverse than those countries. This country is made up of people who can trace their ancestors to all areas of the world. With such a diverse population, I think a little representation should be allowed and expected.

I suppose most of all Im curious why you say you wouldn't be interested in a film that featured a black or trans main character. Like, at all?

Don't take me like I'm trying to come at you, I'm legit interested and curious and aim to be respectful about your opinions, and again, im glad you shared them. But I'm coming from a very different perspective and I just want to get a deeper understanding of your view.

[meridannight]

As we both mentioned, it is overwhelmingly modeled in film and tv that it takes a white (at the very least) male (preferably) character to tell a "universal story". Anything too far outside of that gets a "special interest" sort of label. But when it comes to a historical event where people of color and trans people played central roles, how is it appropriate to create a fictionalized white character as a stand in?

If we are to defend this by saying it is what makes the (white, cis) audience comfortable and interested, then why even bother making the character gay? Would it not make the (straight) audience more comfortable to see a handsome straight man step in to help the poor, oppressed gay people out of their plight and then get the girl in the end? The white savior is certainly a popular theme in film, why not create a place for the straight white one too?

I would say that a film that is seeking to highlight and tell the story of the events and people that led to the Stonewall Riots would require a central black, trans woman character. Just as a film like Selma required a central black male character.

I also think that comparing the American film industry to those that exist in Asia or Africa (Nigeria does have a big movie industry) is a bit troublesome because America is incredibly more diverse than those countries. This country is made up of people who can trace their ancestors to all areas of the world. With such a diverse population, I think a little representation should be allowed and expected.

I suppose most of all Im curious why you say you wouldn't be interested in a film that featured a black or trans main character. Like, at all?

Don't take me like I'm trying to come at you, I'm legit interested and curious and aim to be respectful about your opinions, and again, im glad you shared them. But I'm coming from a very different perspective and I just want to get a deeper understanding of your view.

i work in the film industry. as a matter of fact, i make films (not specifying it any further than that, interpret it as you will). and it is not as simple as sticking to authenticity that's the case here.

first of all, historical pictures are sort of open to interpretation anyway. just like history itself is open to interpretation to a degree. so when you're making a film about Stonewall, as in this case, you have a whole number of potential characters to choose from. it's not like there never was a white gay male there in the setting. there were white gay men who were on the scene, and the filmmakers have decided to interpret the events in that light. the white male is not fictional, he's just been elevated from the background to the foreground. as long as the producers and the director don't quote historical accuracy, there's nothing wrong with a little flight of imagination, as it is. they are, in essence, staying true to the general idea, while tweaking the details a little. (as it goes, white lesbian female also didn't get to be the hero).

why it's not the white heterosexual male as the hero -- it might be the filmmakers' purpose to further expose audiences to homosexual topics, or explore the subject for themselves for their own personal reasons. a heterosexual hero was obviously not ever the purpose of the film. if it were, the writers would have written a different screenplay, one where a heterosexual male saves the day for his gay friends, or something in that vein. the possibilities are as limitless as your imagination for you to make it the way you want it. the homosexual hero is there because they clearly wanted one. (and it is also the fact that audiences have become more comfortable with homosexual topics, and there are a lot of guys who actually want to explore this subject in film and find it having a lot of potential). thus the white homosexual male is no longer an alien to the general audience, for the producers to cast him out.

second of all, which is actually more important, you have to find investors for your project. getting a film into production is hell. it takes years! you have no idea just how difficult it is to do it. you have to pitch your stories to people who don't care about you or your project, for money. they just want to finance a big blockbuster that will generate income and fame or either. and you have to convince them that it is worth their money. there are so many projects looking to be made in place of yours. good ideas get washed under the table and trampled on all the time. you go in there pitching a story about making a film about a bunch of trans people and black guys leading the Stonewall Riots --- good luck. you might just go ahead and burn your script yourself (unless your investors are black and trans, which they are not).

then you need names, a good director, the cast to sign off on your project. it is impossible for me to break it all down here in this post, but unless you have the luxury to make the film with your own money and stand the losses (in the hundreds of millions), it just doesn't work that way. whining (not you, i mean people in general) about changing the color of the lead hero is pointless little details that eventually have no effect on the production and outcome of the film in any way that matters.

whoever wanted to make this film in the first place, is to be commended for setting in motion a major Hollywood picture that deals with the subject of homosexuality. if they changed the details a little in the process, that is a small deal not to blame them for. we can all open the history books (or the internet) and read the truth (more or less) if we desire. but films are entertainment. they are a costly entertainment to produce (this is easily forgotten if all you're doing is sitting in front of the screen with a ready-made product before your eyes). and it is the luxury of the production team to tweak the perspective the way they see fit, without it becoming false. and it doesn't become false with a while lead male, it just becomes slightly different.

did it make things more understandable?

as for me personally, i am a white male of European heritage. this is my culture, this is my history. and i'm proud of it. i don't know what it's like to be black, and come from that cultural background and ancestry. i can't relate to problems that black people specifically have, i can't even understand them properly. i can't look at events and see them through their perspective, or relate to that perspective. there's nothing wrong with making a film from e.g. black first person point of view, but it doesn't get to me. it leaves me cold, unmoved. how am i supposed to feel sympathetic to the cause unfolding in the film, if i can't relate to it? (PS. there are ways to do it, but it would need appeal for certain more universal human values, that this particular film does not deal with).

people don't relate to specific events (in this case Stonewall) unless they experienced it in first person. people relate through other people. this is one of the secrets of successful film-making. and key to what we've been discussing.



PS. i wasn't comparing Hollywood to industries in Asia or Africa. they served as an example, not as a comparison.

[Emiliano]

did it make things more understandable?

Yeah, it did, thank you. You wrote a very clear description of why its like that. Everything you wrote out made sense.

Thats not the part of it that Im hung up on though. What you said is all true. And connected to why i think im liking the vandalism of the statues.

[meridannight]

i finally watched the trailer and it says ''inspired by the incredible true story''. nothing ambiguous or controversial there. it sets the record pretty straight. i also saw plenty of black and transsexual people in the trailer there. what exactly is the problem?

and read this:

Rolan Emmerich on Stonewall

wikipedia

Star of the film, Jeremy Irvine responded to the controversy denying that key historical figures, have been omitted, or "whitewashed". He stated: “To anyone with concerns about the diversity of the #StonewallMovie, I saw the movie for the 1st time last week and can assure you all in that it represents almost each one race and division of society in that was so fundamental to one of the most noteworthy civil rights movements in living history,” Jeremy wrote on his INSTAGRAM account. “Marsha P Johnson is a major part of the movie, and although 1st hand accounts of who threw the 1st brick in the riots vary wildly, it is a fictional black transvestite character played by the very talented Vladimir Alexis who pulls out the 1st brick in the riot scene,” he continued.

I understand that following the release of our trailer there have been initial concerns about how this character’s involvement is portrayed, but when this film — which is truly a labor of love for me — finally comes to theaters, audiences will see that it deeply honors the real-life activists who were there — including Marsha P. Johnson, Sylvia Rivera, and Ray Castro — and all the brave people who sparked the civil rights movement which continues to this day. We are all the same in our struggle for acceptance.

i haven't seen the film. i don't know how accurate it is or is not. but it appears to me at this moment people are blowing it out of proportion and flying into panic without even having seen the film. so the transsexual community is pissed over a trailer? which they were in? fucking ridiculous.

[Emiliano]

i finally watched the trailer and it says ''inspired by the incredible true story''. nothing ambiguous or controversial there. it sets the record pretty straight. i also saw plenty of black and transsexual people in the trailer there. what exactly is the problem?

and read this:

Rolan Emmerich on Stonewall

wikipedia

i haven't seen the film. i don't know how accurate it is or is not. but it appears to me at this moment people are blowing it out of proportion and flying into panic without even having seen the film. so the transsexual community is pissed over a trailer? which they were in? fucking ridiculous.

I read some of those quotes too, and i hope you're not taking any of what I'm saying like im going crazy about all this. Like I said in the original post in this thread, I can't praise or condemn the movie until I've seen it and thought about it.

I think the thing that got me though is the fact, like you laid out, that it feels like there is barely any space out there for lead characters that don't fit into a certain demographic. Thats frustrating, and I can see why it would lead some people to want to push their own narrative into the spotlight even if they don't play by the rules when doing so. Because playing by them wont get you anywhere anyway. Thats the root of a protest - of a riot... If not something darker and non productive all together as well.

The thing that made me want to get into more conversation with you is the statement that some people are just not interested in the points of view and experiences of people that they can't immediately relate to. I shouldnt have to go to Africa or India or East Asia to see non white characters regularly cast in diverse and leading roles. Because they exist in large numbers in this country too. You said you wouldn't be interested in a movie with a central black or trans character. That caught my attention. And there is a frustration in hearing that. Because it extends beyond film and tv. That is the root of my concern. Not the movie, or the trailer, specifically.

I think the generation that I belong to is hyper aware of race and representation. Straight or gay, theres a lot going on in the USA right now. And people want to talk about it. But other people aren't trying to hear it. Because its not their voice being used. Thats frustrating.

I can't speak for the trans community that are upset right now about this movie, or about the trailer rather. I try not to speak for anyone other than myself mostly, but maybe this movie was seen as a opportunity to present a different face as the symbol of gay rights, to challenge the audience not only to relate to a gay character, but to a non white gay character, or a trans one. But instead, for the reasons you listed, that opportunity was not taken.

Thats why I'd argue that its one thing to include and honor the people of color and trans people involved, (and Im glad the filmmaker said there is attention to that, and I'm glad he views it as a labor of love, and I'm glad that a movie with a central gay theme is being made and being put out there like that) but its a completely other thing to make it from their perspective. Thats how an audience of people that view themselves as so dislike a main character might be able to eventually develop the empathy that perhaps they could take outside of the movie theater as well.

If I were in the business of making movies, those would be the goals I'd strive for. But thats not my business. But it is in my interest to support the many filmmakers who do. Im not trying to boycott anything, I want to see this movie. And I want to see Happy Birthday Marsha too. And for someone who likes to overthink and over-analyze, I'm sure it will be fun to compare the two.

[meridannight]

I read some of those quotes too, and i hope you're not taking any of what I'm saying like im going crazy about all this.

no, i understand you're genuinely interested in discussion on issues that are of concern to you.

[Virge]

I left this alone to see what others would say, hoping I wouldn't be odd man out...

I see it as vandalism and I'm not conflicted about it.

From the things said here by people who are sensitive to the issues the perps used to rationalize what they did, it's pretty obvious to me they did more harm to their message than good. They could have put the same amount of energy towards other expressions and made better impressions of themselves. Now if we look at the comments here, it's safe to say 85% of gays and maybe 100% of straights see them as ridiculous vandals more than anything else.

It reminds me of something I read about when I was in high school. Animal rights people went into one of the chain book stores and superglued the pages of books on pets together. And they wonder why people call them nuts.

The bottom line is not everything we encounter in daily life is an intended insult to the back pack full of chips we all carry around and pull out to put on our shoulders when we think it's the right time.

[Steve]

It's vandalism.

In place of Segal's Gay Liberation sculptures lets instead substitute Michelangelo Buonarroti's David. I could simply point to the uproar such pointed disrespect for the artist and his work would cause, but the mass reaction alone isn't the issue. It is easy and cheap to deface/vandalize works of art to create sensationalism, thus drawing attention. I am not disputing the effectiveness with which this idiocy has the possibility to draw attention. Toward that vein I would, however, question whether the vandals are drawing the right kind of attention. If this type of action is supported in mainstream thought, by leaders of the communities the sensationalism represents, then I begin to have misgivings about the quality of their reasoning.

Let's get back to my original idea, substituting Michelangelo's David for Segal's Gay Liberation sculptures. I am not comparing the virtues or quality of either artist, but rather trying to shed light on the question by use of the perceived perspective between the lessor and the greater known art. Does the disrespect to Segal and his work become clearer when placed in that light? Would the vandals have thought twice about committing the act if it were David and not the Gay Liberation sculptures? By that line of reasoning, did the vandals devalue the Segal's work and what it stands for by assuming it would be ok to deface them? Even though a tremendous gulf of fame, value, and history separates them, both are works of art, both have taken the time and the sweat of the artist. Whether works of art obtain fame and value, no matter the quality of execution or historic significance neither should be disrespected.

Protesters should have commissioned their own art, not disrespected the art of Segal. Organize a march, picket the movie opening... there are far less damning ways to draw attention to a conflict of opinion.

Nor should the issue ever have been how well the art might be repaired. That's just reaching for an excuse to vandalize. Some art is made to be temporary. Some art is meant to be added upon. Segal's Pride sculptures were not envisioned with that aesthetic.

As for the movie, I haven't seen it. I expect that given the chance I will see it at some point. I would have watched it no matter the color or ethnicity of the protagonist. I don't see drawing attention to the Stonewall riots is anything but positive. If the film had intentionally couched the Stonewall riots as Caucasian and not included other ethnicity, genders, etc., such accusations may have been more credible. As it stands, its not as if the movie Milk was made with a black actor, The Butler made with a white actor, or Before Night Falls rendered Reinaldo Arenas with an Chinese actor. What will activists demand next? LGBT themed movies be cast with only LGBT actors?

It isn't that I cannot see the point protesters are making, or that I am completely unsympathetic. In light of the fact that this movie is an inspiration and not a documentary, I can acknowledge the protesters views and still think that their resulting behavior is out of proportion. Not that I curry favor with anyone defacing art anyway.

The bottom line in movie making is profit. People seem to forget that this particular form of art is business, and as such is subjected to the need to generate a healthy return for investors. The industry is currently straight jacketed by investors who only wish to see profit. Every year less original movies are made. Remakes and reinventions of epic blockbusters, violence laden car gang and martial art movies, and über patriotic solder movies among other genres have become the industry's focus. Original movie concepts have been taken from popular young adult novelists and placed securely in the block buster arena (The Hunger Games, The Maze Runner, Divergent). The "Block Buster" is more sought after and easier to obtain funding for than any film concerning the Stonewall riots.

American Sniper: domestic total gross was $350,126,372. Milk: domestic total gross was $31,841,299. American Sniper cost $60 million to produce. Milk cost $20 million to produce. All things considered, Stonewall was lucky to even see the light of day.