Write whatever you'd like this week, but please remember to support your assertions by referencing specific moments, scenes or sequences from the film. And if, in your reply, you can address concepts of Authenticity, Authority, Evidence, Responsibility and how they relate to your understanding and appreciation of How to Survive a Plague - all the better.
Good luck, and please remember to post your response both here and on Moodle by no later than Wednesday morning at 9am!
Unfortunately, tonight is my only chance to watch this film and my internet is choosing to be mean to me. I was only able to see the first 40 minutes. From what I saw, I really did not like the structure and organization of this film. I think the use of archival footage was good for showing the different events, rallies, and protests that led to changes within the curing aids movement; however, certain moments and highlights left me completely confused. At first, I wasn’t sure if this was a character driven piece or strictly a social issue doc. It seemed like it was a character piece but I felt like the main character kept switching? There was that part with the father playing with his daughter and a v.o. stating that he came out of the closet at age 40. Then there was the man who showed up in a lot of the TV interviews who always wore the shirt with the pink Triangle. Was this the same man? I honestly couldn’t tell. Basically, I would have liked for the main character (if there was one) to be established quickly and clearly. I know there was some v.o. narrating but the tone of the voice was kind of soft and was lacking in assertiveness. I think for someone to narrate a documentary, their volume has to be loud enough, of course, and their tone must show confidence. Was the narrator one of the main characters I was seeing on screen? I didn’t feel I could identify with who was speaking to me, so that had me lost within all this main-character-identifying.
ReplyDeleteAnother reason why I became so confused is because, for each archival scene when someone was interviewed on the spot, their name and occupation showed up on screen. My initial thought was “Oh, cool. This person must be important to the storytelling of this doc.” After a short while, I had seen so many different names and occupations and faces that they began to blend together. Soon everyone from different events started to look alike and I’m pretty sure I saw some career titles repeat; this through me off from the beginning. I understand if the filmmakers wanted to give each speaker credit, recognition and a voice, but when it comes to the overall story of the doc, the names aren’t important…their message is. I quickly became flustered with the amount of people I thought I had to keep tabs on and keep track of. Perhaps that was the filmmakers intention…to show how massive this crowd of Aids victims is. Either way, it made me strongly disconnect from the film.
This film was interesting. I didn't necessarily love or hate it. The images of people with their shirts off at the doctor were unsettling for me. I have never liked seeing people in the hospital or see people suffering from disease. The images of the people in the hospital just showed suffering and death to me. I think this is why I didn't fully enjoy the film. However the parts with all the protests were very interesting. I loved the dedication these people had. Everything seemed authentic. That being said, I didn't notice anything bout the protests or group meetings that seemed staged or reenacted. Anytime I see a film with a protest it never seems to work out for the protesters, at least not at that time. They always seem to get hauled off to jail, and they did. But then they changed their protesting and eventually got what they wanted, a drug to help with AIDS. And then they protested more and got new drug to help. The authority was definitely the government. It took them a while to fold and help these victims but eventually they caved and gave them what they wanted and helped a little bit. The protesters were very responsible with their protests and requests. They had a valid reason to be upset. Overall it was a well made film and had a good message.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, wow was I ignorant to the problem of HIV/aids. But not because I didn't know about it, but because I did now know the full story at all. I had no clue that this disease was literally ignored by the government for years before any real action was taken. I knew it was a life ending disease that was not really curable, but I had no clue the amount of people it had killed, or the amount of people it affected.
ReplyDeleteThe film was very well done in my mind, the use of archival footage, past interviews and new footage really gave the film a real feel. Never once did I think anything was staged, and to be honest the interviews seemed more like conversations with the people. One thing I noticed was the weird lower thirds for EVERYONE. Instead of just giving a name, most people had weird job titles under their name, and while I don't think it took away from the film, I don't think it added either. Having interviews and footage on everyone from the president to the people affected by the disease to the scientist conducting experiments made the film feel even more real. It also gave the film a very fair feeling, no one side was being attacked, and all the information was given.
The film was long, but it had to be to be fair and give you everything from every side. Also the story spanned just about 22 years, so length couldn't really be cut down without changing the story. The authority was the government at first, with their refusal to even really talk about the disease, but I felt like it switched to the Act Up group when it showed them getting stuff done and making progress. Showing the rallies and people getting arrested was oddly inspiring and showed that these people would do anything to get the government off their ass. I wish it would have shown more of the government reactions to the individual rallies, but the film did a great job of showing the government reaction as a whole I thought. Having politicians for and against the Act Up group was great to.
This film really showed what a beautiful tragedy that took place, and by beautiful I mean the peoples spirit of never giving up and never losing track of their goal, when most of them knew they'd be dead before a cure was found. And the scene were names were being called out, then the rally on Washington and the ashes being spread was honestly the most chaotic, inspiring, angering (the list of emotions goes on and on) scene I have ever seen.
I feel somewhat robbed after watching this. Not in the sense that this film affected me negatively, but in the sense that I wasn’t properly exposed to this highly important issue until watching this/videos on YouTube over the past few years regarding HIV and AIDS. Why aren’t American children, teens, and even adults shown the truth? I know that in our class there is constantly a question about what truth is, but I believe there is plenty of truth in this film. There is so much archival footage! One of the best parts of the whole film was when we see footage of Sen. Jesse Helms speaking out against the right of the 1st Amendment. Another Senator calls him out, saying “In the 1st Amendment, people don’t have to shut their mouths”. He replies by saying “They can say whatever they’d like, as long as it’s not offensive to others”. I’m sure this was considered by many to be a humorous point in the film, but it is really far from it. In the midst of a highly homophobic country (which is homophobic to this day), people were defending not just beliefs and ideas, but their actual lives. They needed medicine in order to survive. “Let em’ all die for taking it up the butt,” is a sad approach to health care. It is spoken that being a disease most commonly in homosexuals has nothing to do with the time it takes to find a cure, when it seems to be the biggest concern for how it is looked at. There are a lot of small things in the archival footage such as a rainbow flag almost replacing the original corporate flag, that give little hints of the director’s perspective or stance. Showing footage of smaller, education-based, studying meetings was also very powerful. I will continue to read more about this epidemic, now that I have educated myself more on the subject. This was a powerful film, mainly because it showed how the little guys and girls can make a difference in the big picture if they work hard enough.
ReplyDeleteThis film really touched me. It was powerful in how the people banded together in order to challenge the system. And they did it for a noble cause. I thought it was very moving and smart to tell the story mostly through archival footage. It put us in the moments, like when Act Up had their meetings and in the footage of the protests. It was also powerful to watch because of the rawness of it. Seeing the AIDS patients with their weight loss and their blood transfusions, it was tough to watch. But this film is very authentic to me because I saw footage of the incidents through many perspectives. Through the news, their own footage, and through the interviews. It was explored through all angles. This doc also made me mad because I never knew to much about the AIDS epidemic and it's victims. I have no problem with gay people, but I did have a problem with how society was handling AIDS. I feel that the doc was responsible in how it showed truth. I felt that all things exposed in this film was very necessary to get people's attention on a very important subject matter. I felt happy when some of the people back then were still alive to tell their stories at the end. I agree with Tommy that the film was not about homosexuals finding a cure for AIDS, but it was about people fighting for their lives in a cruel world.
ReplyDeleteI was surprised at how much I liked How to Survive a Plague. The content was hard-hitting, and the stories were great, of course, but I couldn’t imagine a 90% archival film being any good. I was proven wrong. Although this isn’t a style I would use, or typically like to see, this was a phenomenal film that really captured the essence of the riots. These people were facing death, and instead of being miserable and sulking around, unified to fight for their lives. I was shocked at how the riots struck me through only archival footage. David France did an excellent job of getting a lot of camera angles to make you feel as if you were there. I was also impressed at the animations used in the part describing what a particular drug did to stop the spread of HIV. It changed the pace up a little to see a cool scientific animation in the midst of the interviews, and archival footage. I personally love that there is no narration, and it really added to the authenticity of the film. These people on camera were not being manipulated by the director. David France displayed this footage responsibly, and tended to avoid the physical conflicts that occur during riots most of the time when it would have been easy to make us even more angry by doing so. This goes to show that he believed the footage he had was evidence enough of the horrible things those who are infected have to go through; it really works for me.
ReplyDeleteFor some reason I’ve never been a huge fan of social issue documentaries. I think it might be because that’s what I watched in school when I was younger. So now I still automatically think social issue docs are boring. Although I don’t think boring is the right word for this documentary, I still couldn’t get into it. Though there are a lot of elements that were done well that helped the story along. I was surprised how much archival footage was used and enjoyed the way it was edited into the film. I liked the shot of Bob was with his daughter dancing. This shot was used a few different times and it always added something to the narrative that was going on at the time. For example one of the times he talks about how he came out at 40. He then goes on to talk about what society should do to those who hurt themselves because they are human … who smoke to much, who drive carelessly, … who don’t have safe sex. I think this moment grows the compactions for him by the audience in an extreme way.
ReplyDeleteIt’s rather simple but I think the count for the worldwide A.I.D.S. death was a good touch. It gave a sense of urgency. Regarding evidence, this was something that was small but argued the point of the film in a big way.
I know I’ve said that I am a fan of the docs that show both sides but this film it isn’t necessary. It would be really weird if we heard people who were apart of delaying the research. It just goes to show that there is no formula for a “good” documentary. You have to play it by each situation.
I read in someone else’s post about too many names and people to follow. It was really hard for me to keep track of people as well. I knew the woman, the guy who filmed, Bob, Jim, and Peter but everyone else just confused me. I liked them in the film I just think more establishment was needed or maybe more emphases on a few main people.
Since I have preconceived feelings about social issue documentaries I’m really looking forward to hearing what our next guest has to say about them. I hope what she sheds some light, helping me appreciate them more.
Absolutely devastating the way we were going about finding any real treatment for aids. i too like a couple other people on the post was completely unaware of the mass hysteria going on that many government officials were making it to help all the infected. i also didn't know to what extent many activist and public went through to try to get the FDA to approve the experimental drugs to try and it was really amazing how under all that pressure and the current unity they had they were able to get an FDA to approve the Medicine. it was also really almost exhilerating seeing how all the sit in and kiss ins and public gathering would take place and have a lasting effect on where ever they were. with the pharmaceuticals especially because that was essantially who needed to produce the meds. I think the use of archival footage was really great and almost chilling in a way because to me this seemed like a story long awaited to be told and the spirit of it all and the movement was in the archival footage, the filmmaker was nearly a vessel through which this was being put together. The archival was used at the best to its ability because it really put me in that time and given the fact that this was such a universal issue that hit at home and we were able to document so much of it and the story of the activist was intense watching them start strong as a collective and than further down the fight we see the ACT UP group split and the efforts and progress they were making with the medicine they wanted being available they find out that again it wasn't really making much of a difference. the doc really opened up the window to see the AIDS fight that i never saw or knew about.
ReplyDeleteWow!!! Powerful narrative! It was a terribly phenomenal picture. Deeply revealing document of a people armed to fight for a cause. I discovered so much about the activist group ACT UP that I knew nothing about. These were people who sacrificed themselves for what they believed was right. Very purposeful, bittersweet, enraging, inspiring, saddened...these emotions rang through me.
ReplyDeleteI loved the re-appropriation of the archival footage in the film. It placed you there with them in that fervent yet vulnerable and scary time. People were dying from a disease and there were no drugs to help them. The reveal at the end of men who were activist still alive brought joy to my heart. The persistence of their fight and unrelenting spirit would not allow their purpose to die. They believed in their cause that blood was spent along the journey in order for it to be realized.
I loved when they went to the Senators house and placed a huge condom over it also when they as a group traveled to the FDA in Bethesda, Maryland and placed their bodies on the ground as a way to make their cause heard put a lot in perspective for me. It was a brave what this group of men and women did.
The power of a doc and a window into what can happen when you believe in your cause and the aims you take to make it possible.
I enjoyed the film. It was quite intimate on a few levels. It brought a feeling of compassion of some sort to me. I enjoyed watching the activist really stick together and stand up for their beliefs. It's quite inspiring and yet somewhat disappointing in a way because there is alot of people who haven't reached a sense of peace or justice in some way.
ReplyDeleteThis film was very interesting for many reasons. First off the way it was put together at time reminded me of a television special yet it was very powerful in a way that does't reflect a television special. I really liked the linear progression with time that the film followed, it made it easy to follow and it feel as if you were in the reality of the moment. This film used talking heads but minimally to put certain things into context. For the most part the archival footage dominated the film, grabbing you into the moment as if you were reliving the time but through another mans eyes. There is authenticity is gained in the way the film presents itself in letting the past tell the story for you instead of someone telling you how it happened. The use of evidence is also presented in the same way a lot of the film addresses it's problems. I think this film was thought provoking in not just the material presented but how it was presented to the viewer as well.
ReplyDeleteThis has to be the most powerful documentary I've ever seen. I think a lot of that power comes from the archival footage which makes it so authentic.
ReplyDeleteI'm with Rangel, Adewole, Zane- I had very little knowledge of the fight to cure AIDS. This story so powerful in America & when I think of AIDS I think of Africa more so than America. It makes me feel ignorant that in my home country I never knew of this struggle. I don't know why it's not taught in schools next to civil rights, woman's & worker's rights. Why AIDS was associated with gays & why it was so powerful in their community I never tried to go in deeper.
ACT UP is so strong. In the beginning of the film I never thought that ACT UP would reach that far, but they did. Their fight was so long and utterly devastating.The most powerful scene after watching the whole film is when they take their dead loved one's ashes to D.C, to the White House. I actually love these people I never knew because I feel like they faught for us, for the good of people against this tyrannic governmental control & crooked companies & policies. The FDA has been boiling my blood since I found out about them.
This story is colossal. Wow, I am so thankful & humbled that it has been revealed. This film is a guide to human rights.
HOW TO SURVIVE A PLAGUE was a very eye opening film. It brought facts about the history of AIDS to my attention that are shocking and cleared up a large misunderstanding that I had growing up. I was always under the impression that there was not an early treatment for AIDS because it was not medically possible at the time, but I learned through the filmmaker's use of archival footage and old interviews that this clearly was not the case. It makes me pretty upset that our government, who I would consider to be the authority in this film, would withhold on people's health for selfish reasons. After seeing some of the harsh imagery evidence of AIDS patients suffering, it made me think about other places in the world where AIDS treatment is still not available. One thing that I was not particularly fond of in the film was the editor's extensive/distracting use of lower thirds, however I do not believe that this took away from the overall message of the film. All in all, I'd consider HOW TO SURVIVE A PLAGUE a pretty truthful film in the sense that we now have treatment for AIDS, which probably has a lot to do with all of the activists' efforts.
ReplyDelete