I would like to discuss the differences between the movies Philadelphia (Jonathan Demme) and 120 BPM (Robin Campillo), two movies dealing with the HIV/AIDS epidemic that struck the world in the 1980s. The virus is believed to have caused more than 32 million people throughout the world. The movies are strikingly different in the way they represent HIV and the people affected by it, and these diverging conceptions, even though they might highlight cultural differences reside in the fact that both movies were released at different periods of time in the history of HIV: Philadelphia was released about ten years after the discovery of the virus when it was still unveiled in spiraling questions, whereas 120BPM is almost thirty years older. The HIV “crisis” seen in hindsight is utterly different, especially considering the swings that occurred in the public opinion, concerning a disease that was initially believed to be a “gay cancer”.
I think it is quite important to underline why homosexuals were targeted more than people with heterosexual practices: indeed, if it is easier to transmit the virus through anal sex because of a higher risk of transmitting blood, we have to be reminded that at that period of time, STDs were not common, and even if they were, they were not common enough to break the taboos built around them. People were protecting themselves during sexual encounters to avoid unwanted pregnancies: the contraceptive pill was liberalized, condoms were too, but there was no reason for people who did not have that risk to be careful. Homosexuals were not as careful as heterosexuals because they did not believe unprotected sex could have consequences on their lives.
Here are a few pictures representing gay stigmatisation in the 1980s
As James Agar underlined it in our seminar, there seem to be a misunderstanding, or something was not well-portrayed in Philadelphia, or at least not as well as in 120BPM. In 1993, public opinion still believed it was a disease only affecting gay people. Even though the movie does represent a woman who caught it through a blood transfusion, her pristine looks and healthy appearance was not striking enough to make the audience believe that she was ill. The focus is on Andrew Beckett, the gay man, whose scars we only get so see once. There is something strangely politically correct in Philadelphia, a determination in avoiding to shock the audience; they were probably afraid of the backlash it could cause on a population refusing to face reality. As James Agar seems to believe, Philadelphia was Hollywood’s good deed, a form of charity allowing them to feel good and move-on unremorsefully.
And indeed, it would have shocked the population: if 120BPM had been released in 1993, I doubt it would have received as good a critic as it did a few years ago. People, in times of crisis are unable to face it properly and prefer to be oblivious to it rather than face the Tantalian truth of an unchangeable dire situation. But watching 120BPM today is easier, because the situation has passed and we are not asked to react and fight against an incommensurably prominent problem.
The HIV-related stigmatisation of gay people ended progressively and seemed to retreat as scientific progresses were made.
To conclude, I believe that a common reaction to a crisis is ignorance, and this is clearly seen during the HIV/AIDS crisis: people lacked knowledge and preferred to rely on the hope they would never be infected because they couldn’t, rather than protect themselves and acknowledge the disease’s lethality. Acknowledging it meant giving way to fear and panic and in times of crisis, it is easier to try to avoid it.