Review:
Gays fight back in 'Stonewall Uprising'
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/08/MVPH1EA4SL.DTL
David Wiegand
Friday, July 9, 2010
Stonewall Uprising
Documentary by Kate Davis and David Heilbroner. (Not rated. 82 minutes.)
--
In the beginning, it was just a routine bust of a seedy Greenwich
Village bar, but by the time it was over, it changed history and lives.
On the night of June 28, 1969, six New York City cops entered the
ratty, Mafia-owned Stonewall Inn, with its watered-down booze and
plywood covering the windows, under orders to shut the place down.
The same thing had just happened the previous Tuesday and would
probably happen again, so it wasn't a big deal.
In the past, gays and lesbians had accepted the raids, the arrests
and the targeted abuse as their lot in life. No matter how bad it
was, it seemed better than trying to live a secret existence in the
small towns they'd come from. As one of the participants recalls in
the film "Stonewall Uprising," opening today at Bay Area theaters,
"Who was going to complain against a crackdown on gays? No one. Not even us."
All of that changed on a hot moonlit night on Christopher Street.
This time, gays and lesbians drew a line and refused to erase it,
even when five busloads of cops showed up to try to quell what had
become a riot of thousands of people, far beyond the number of people
in the bar at the time of the raid.
Filmmakers David Heilbroner and Kate Davis have been making
documentaries for 15 years, but it's probable that none of their
previous projects had so little raw material to work with as
"Stonewall Uprising." Only a handful of grainy still photographs
exist from that first night of riots. There was no "film at 11" from
local TV stations, certainly no cell phones to capture the moment,
and even when the New York Times reported on the riot, it minimized
its size and import.
But through extensive interviews with people who were there,
including Village Voice columnist Howard Smith and retired cop
Seymour Fine, as well as other figures such as then-Councilman Ed
Koch and law Professor William Eskridge, Heilbroner and Davis not
only meticulously draw a picture of what actually happened that night
(as opposed to the ever-growing mythology), but also preface it with
a sometimes horrifying picture of cultural attitudes toward gays and
lesbians in the years before Stonewall.
The walk-up to the riots takes up almost two-thirds of the film, and
that's as it should be. Even those who are old enough to remember the
Stonewall uprising may find themselves shocked at how virulent
anti-gay sentiment was in the '50s and '60s in the United States.
A 1967 CBS television report called "The Homosexuals," narrated by
Mike Wallace, labels homosexuality "a mental illness." It was not
unusual for gays and lesbians to be subjected to aversion therapy, as
well as, in some cases, sterilization, castration of men and even
lobotomies. A Columbia University film showing how boys behaved in
groups singles out one little boy who "pats his hair," while other
boys roughhouse. Clearly, the narrator says, he doesn't behave "like
a real boy."
Gays and lesbians weren't exactly safe in larger cities, but they
could at least find others like themselves. One man gleefully
remembers being able to talk openly for the first time with other gay
men on Christopher Street and not fear reprisals.
In New York, drag queens always had to wear at least three items of
male clothing (socks didn't count) to avoid being arrested for
breaking an 1845 law against masquerading. Fledgling rights
organizations like the Mattachine Society and the Daughters of
Bilitis met in secret, fearing that they were being watched by the
FBI. And when they did demonstrate, they made sure the men wore
jackets and ties and the women wore skirts.
There are two implicit messages in this film, but they are
necessarily at odds with each other. On the one hand, "Stonewall
Uprising" shows how far we've come toward enlightenment and tolerance
since that hot June night. On the other, it reminds us that there are
still many minds to change and rights to win.
The film's final words are simple and to the point, and come from the
retired cop, Seymour Pine:
"You knew they broke the law, but what kind of law was that?"
--
E-mail David Wiegand at dwiegand@sfchronicle.com.
--------
Stonewall Uprising
http://www.sfbaytimes.com/?sec=article&article_id=13263
By Gary Kramer
Published: July 8, 2010
"Stonewall Uprising" is a useful if superficial addition to the
numerous histories of the 1969 riots at the Stonewall Inn that
signify the start of the "gay revolution." The film, which is
incredibly well edited by co-director Kate Davis, effectively uses
the few extant photographs from the event along with recreations and
imagessuch as newsreels and clippingsfrom the era. Interviews with
participants in the riots and other talking heads flesh out the
portrait. It's all done in a traditional documentary film approach,
neither fancy nor stodgy.
"Stonewall Uprising" is loosely based on David Carter's excellent
book "Stonewall." The filmmakers take the book's trajectorysetting
the stage, describing the riots, and discussing the aftermathas a
narrative arc. Several people featured in the book, such as Danny
Garvin, Deputy Inspector Seymour Pine, and reporters Lucian Truscott
and Howard Smith, are interviewed in the film. Their testimonies,
which are sincere and heartfelt, will be familiar to those who have
read Carter's history.
Before the credits begin, "Stonewall Uprising" indicates that in 1969
homosexual acts were illegal in every state except Illinois. Bars
were the social center of gay life at this time, and cops were
instructed to raid gay bars to "put them out of business."
The filmmakers spend considerable time illustrating how difficult
life was for gay men and women in the 1960s. There are sobering
accounts of treatments used to "cure" homosexuality including
electroshock therapy, sterilization, castration, and even lobotomy.
Footage from public service films like "Boys Beware" show homosexuals
as predators, and a "CBS Reports" segment provides the statistic that
two out of every three people hate/fear homosexuals.
This is all interestingeven scarybackground information, but the
filmmakers spend little or no time chronicling the efforts of gay men
and women to combat such oppression. "Stonewall Uprising" briefly
addresses the Mattachine Society, and the Daughters of Bilitis, two
significant homophile groups that were integral to the gay revolution.
Instead, interviewees emphasize the difficulties of being gay at the
time as well. "It eats you up inside," testifies one man. Garvin, who
was at the riots, describes his sexual confusion as a young man in
the Navy. He saw gay men as being either effeminate or older
[predatory] men, and he was neither.
Perhaps this lack of a role model prompted him to become one.
However, the filmmakers do not explore Garvin's or other
participants' thoughts on the event. The subjects generally provide
an account of what happened. This will be a drawback for viewers
wanting more information from these living legends.
The film shows how the law was particularly restrictive and/or
repressive for gay men and women. It was illegal to wear less than
three articles of clothing that were designed for one's gendera rule
that caused drag queens considerable grief. There is also footage
that shows a nineteen-year old being arrested for lewd behaviorhe
was caught with another man in a public rest room. The teen bemoans
that his life will be "ruined" by the arrest as gay men could not get
jobs as teachers or in the government as a result of their arrest
records. "Stonewall Uprising" casually mentions how gay men were
victims of entrapment. Perhaps the filmmakers could have explored
this more as well, as the activist movements of the era worked
vigorously to put an end to this kind of police harassment.
The second half of the film chronicles the riots themselves. The
Stonewall Inn, it described as "the perfect site" for an uprising as
it was centrally located in the village. A mafia run "bottle club"
(drinking establishment)the bar had to charge membership fees to
keep it private since there were laws against declaring one's
homosexuality in public. According to one interviewee, the Stonewall
Inn served overpriced, watered down drinks, but it was still very
popular. As most places for gay men to congregate were out of the
waylike the busy (meat delivery) trucks by the piers that provided a
site for anonymous sexual encountersthe Stonewall was an important
gay establishment.
When the bar was raided on Friday, June 27following a raid on
Tuesday that same weekthe patrons, having had enough mistreatment in
society, fought back and changed history. "Stonewall Uprising"
recounts how gay men and women outnumbered the police. In addition,
because the Inn's patrons knew the streets better than the cops, they
were able to vent their anger towards authority successfully through
rioting. What emerges from the film is the sense of rebellion and how
the violence felt justified after so much repression. "Stonewall
Uprising" captures this feeling well, and this is the film's greatest
strength. When an interviewee sheds a tear recounting his experiences
at the riots, it is quite moving.
The film closes with a brief consideration of how the riots prompted
the gay pride movement and the celebrations that take place across
the world that celebrate GLBT life. If nothing else, viewers should
take away the importance of what the rioters did and how they started
the fight for the rights we now have.
"Stonewall Uprising" duly captures the power of the rebellion and
what it meant for gay men and women to discover they were "not
alone." Ultimately, these heroes found the strength to rise up and
formed a strong community in the process.
"Stonewall Uprising" may not be the definitive portrait of the riots,
but it tells an important story. It is one that needs to be toldand retold.
.
0 comments:
Post a Comment