“There’s a great quote by Larry Kramer, one of the premier LGBT activists, that says ‘We are not a people without a history,’” said Colorado College alumnus and “Stonewall” producer Adam Press, when asked about his reason for making the movie.
After serving on the board of Freedom to Marry, a national organization that supports same-sex marriage initiatives, Press said he realized that many people, including members of the queer community, don’t know their history. Though LGBTQ+ history is recent, people still need to be reminded of where the movement began.
“I wanted to provide that context and show the social conditions that lead to the Stonewall riots,” said Press.
Despite his informative intentions, members of Colorado College’s LGBTQ+ community boycotted an October screening of the film. Curious to understand their reasoning, the October screening was postponed, and Press invited these members to attend a separate, exclusive screening of the film, followed by a discussion. His proposal was turned down.
On Thursday, Nov. 5, at the Cornerstone Theater for the rescheduled screening of “Stonewall”, only about a quarter of the seats were filled, and many in attendance were faculty. Opponents of the “Stonewall” screening provided an alternative movie option.
The film’s on-campus critics declined to be interviewed for this story, but as Press understands it, the controversy began about two months ago when someone (not a CC student) watched the 2:23-minute “Stonewall” trailer and posted on social media that the movie whitewashes the history of the LGBTQ+ community.
The primary complaint: the movie’s central character is a gay white male, who is shown throwing the first brick of the riot, while history credits the Stonewall Riots to black transgender women. However, Press says the controversial brick-throwing scene is misrepresented in the trailer.
“There’s a context to it in the film,” said Press. “The black transgender woman takes a brick out of her purse, gives a speech, then hands the brick to the main character Jeremy, who throws the brick.”
The trailer, influenced by Hollywood, only shows the white male throwing the brick and leaves out the content that leads up to the throwing of the brick.
The claim spread on social media, and when CC’s Film and Media Studies Department screened “Stonewall” in October, LGBTQ+ students petitioned for a boycott of the film, saying that it is, among other things, “discursively violent,” and that it reinforces a “hierarchy of oppression.”
The petition read: “In a world where cisgender, white gay people have finally achieved ‘marriage equality’ and many see the struggle as being over, it is reinforcing a hierarchy of oppression to invent someone who never existed and place them in a historically-based film with the express purpose of silencing more marginalized groups.”
Press says the movie has been played for Stonewall veterans, and their reception to the movie has been overwhelmingly positive. In fact, he remembers that the veterans felt it was quite authentic to the riot, which leads him to his main objection to the situation at CC: he is confused at how students can protest the movie without having seen it. He believes they are speaking out against the film based on social media posts and a trailer.
The controversy has brought national attention to the CC campus, as the “Stonewall” boycott was highlighted in The Daily Beast last week, in a story titled “College Kids Try to Ban a Pro-Gay Film.”
Some students claim that the controversy is creating a divide within CC’s LGBTQ+ community, as people don’t feel free to speak their minds. First-year Johnathon Williams says that he probably wouldn’t have attended the screening of the movie unless he had gone with his friend. He wouldn’t have felt comfortable going alone.
“It’s a privilege to be able to have a discussion,” said Williams. “I know discussions are uncomfortable, but we have to be uncomfortable and go through uncomfortable conversations before we can go through change.”
Press says several students asked him if they could enter the screening theatre through a back door.
“When I asked why, they told me that they wanted to see the film so they could make up their own minds, but they feared the social repercussions of simply going to watch it,” said Press.
Press says he is disappointed that he couldn’t discuss the movie with its detractors.
“I would have enjoyed engaging with these students in a conversation on this subject they clearly are so passionate about, but their unwillingness to examine the two hours and four minutes we would be discussing makes it impossible to have any sort of conversation about it,” said Press.
Even so, he believes the students who are boycotting are filled with a “passionate energy” that can be used to fight social injustices faced by the LGBTQ+ community.
“We all share the common goal of overcoming the last legal vestige of oppression which makes us face the reality that we can get married on Sunday, but on Monday, we can be fired, thrown out of where we live, or denied public accommodation, solely because of who we love,” said Press.
Annie Engen
Latest posts by Annie Engen (see all)
- Average Pay for Full-Time Professors is $132,200 – Apr 1, 2016
- Chan’s Thesis Film, a Force for Local Good – Mar 26, 2016
- Behind the Scenes at Rail Jam – Mar 4, 2016