Stonewall

CinemaSerf

I think Roland Emmerich’s mistake here was tying this story so specifically to Stonewall. Had he just left it as an Armistead Maupin, “Tales of the City”, type of structured drama then it might have worked more convincingly. It centres around “Danny” (Jeremy Irvine) who has been ostracised by his rural community and his own family after he was caught fooling round with his pal “Joe” (Karl Glusman) by two of their friends who wasted no time in sharing their discovery amongst their schoolmates. Evicted, he moves to New York City with little more than a suitcase and makes for the Stonewall Inn. Once there, he encounters a potpourri of characters who welcome him, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, and where “Ray” (Jonny Beauchamp) tries to help him get out from under his cardboard bedding and perhaps begin the process of fitting in/coming out. What now ensues is quite a messy drama that tries to be all things to all people, and to define a fairly volatile time in American history, but really ends up paying lip service to an whole gamut of stereotypes. The thing about stereotypes, though, is that they do usually have their roots in some element of truth and so some of the intolerance and bigotry on display here rings just as true as stories of police brutality - which was applied fairly indiscriminately, and of the venal attitude of organised crime. I’ve never been a fan of the concept of the LGBTQ etc. community as it often just ends up being some sort of anti-straight alliance that insists on trying to create a sense of community from a collection of individuals whose only common feature is not conforming to heterosexual norms, and I thought this did go some way to remind us that just because you are white and wholesome doesn’t mean you have any easier a ride than someone of colour, perceived to be from the wrong side of the tracks. The fact that “Danny” is a butter-wouldn’t-melt type, who is not lacking in courage, is a story worth telling in it’s own right. Homophobia isn’t an American thing - just read Quentin Crisp or Oscar Wilde, nor does it care about the colour of your skin, and as the film builds to what I thought was a reasonably historically accurate denouement, I felt it did take a topic that was still borderline taboo ten years ago and present the absurdity of discrimination and the frustrations and iniquities faced by those discriminated against into a mainstream that allowed people without any personal skin in this game to watch and evaluate for themselves. It’s not great, far from it, but even though he was given a very restricted role to play, I felt Irvine did well in taking this to new eyes and ears, and to be honest the die-hard queers and trans lobby were probably never going to appreciate this, anyway.