When prompted on whether or not having a lead that …show more content…
looked more like him would better entice him to buy a ticket, Charlie Robertson, a straight, white male, confirmed, “Yes, it honestly would,” but goes on to say, “I’m ashamed that’s how it is. I would want it to be the other way around.”
While Emmerich gains the straight audience through relatability, he loses his LGBT audience through inaccuracy. By not representing the diversity in the crowd of the Stonewall Riot, he has offended members of the LGBT community. One such member, Melody MacLachlan, who also serves as the Vice President of West Circle Pride, insists,
“If the straight community wants to take the LGBT+ community seriously, historical accuracy is the better route.
Society shouldn’t have to make exceptions to make an issue more prevalent.” At what point does creative liberty erase the history in historical fiction? Media and information major, Tim Montoya believes, “In terms of film, [creative interpretation is ok] as long as the general story is there, not necessarily every little tidbit, but as long as the main concepts are preserved. I think once you drastically alter what happened and the outcomes of what happened, then it just becomes fiction.” By casting a straight-passing, white male as his lead, the consensus is that Emmerich erases the diversity in the crowd that rioted against police with heels and stones on that monumental day, thus losing much of the historical significance. The assistant director of the Michigan State LGBT Resource Center, Alex Lange, and film studies professor, David Bering-Porter, could not be reached for comment at this time. Elderly drag queens across the U.S. skip the popcorn and sodas, and their tickets to Emmerich’s Stonewall altogether, until they can feel properly reflected onscreen. Until that happens, history will just remain in the
past.