Something that I’m excited to watch is a multipart documentary airing on ABC called when we rise. The story of the documentary is thought the eyes of reenactments of real historical figures and do through the entirety of the gay rights movement. The first part aired last night and was set in post stonewall San Fransisco. From what I can ascertain from the trailers the arc of the documentary will begin there and fallow up until the supreme court decision. Its almost ironic that its coming out post the absurdity surrounding the unneeded fight over bathroom rights for transgendered individuals. Now something of a similar caliber also came out before this that was meant to only show the stonewall riots, however that movie was while set in a historical setting both not a documentary and not realistic. It removed key players from the truth of the events in favor of forwarding the imaginary protagonist and fused actual key figures together and renamed them to allow someone to fulfill some of their actions while delegating other key moments to the fictional persona. Now while only the first part has aired my hope is that this will be far more respectful to the true figures who fought and died in the course of their fight and allow them the respect they deserve by having whoever portrays them to perform the action associated with them. I also hope that they will acknowledge the blunders made through the movement that the problematic political movements used to normalize the community in an effort to gain favor with cis hets. And on that point I ask a question. For a documentary showing the struggle of a group of people is it their responsibility to edit and focus the film in a way that makes it more digestible to the majority of the audience as to give people previously unaware with the source material some familiarity with it even if the edges are smoothed out to make it digestible? Or is it better to give the people who inherited their struggle and fight a true and accurate background of the history of their movement all of the dirty laundry included?
Antonio Garofalo
I don’t know much about the exact details and causes of the stonewall riots but I am gay and I am a major proponent of all the facts being laid out so that people can make their own beliefs. I really hate when bias gets in the way of the facts which is why I consider myself a moderate when I was once full liberal. It’s hard to get a real idea of anything nowadays because both sides always try to sugar coat the negatives and demonize the opposite side. Because of that, i think that all the dirty laundry should be included. I see this same problem going on with the black lives matter movement, the left tries to ignore or make excuses for the senseless violence towards people who have nothing to do with the government or police as well as demonizing any blacks that do not support them. While the right would focus on the violence, the welfare of the police force, and not the peaceful protesters that want real change to happen to improve the lives of minorities. I prefer when people use logos and evidence to support themselves, not pathos. Pathos usually leads to ignorance of the other side and further splits the country on all kinds of issues such as the transgender bathroom mess. No compromise ever comes to fruition because of such strong feelings of pathos. As for your question, I think a documentary should not edit and focus the film in a way that makes it more digestible to the majority of the audience. I do not think it should be make easier to take in, it should show all the information and brutally honest as possible because of all the reasons I laid out. This also needs to be included for historical perspective so that the future generations one hundred years from now know all the facts.