Living
Castro catastrophe
‘We Were Here’ offers first-hand accounts of AIDS horrors in San Francisco
A vintage still from San Francisco's Castro neighborhood used in 'We Were Here.' (Photo courtesy of Film Collaborative)
There were angels in San Francisco.
But unlike in Tony Kushner’s two-part Pulitzer-Prize-winning play about AIDS — “Angels in America,” set in New York City in the mid-1980s — these angels were real people.
In the Kushner play, an angel descends to earth, as his fictional characters struggled with this unsettling new disease, the “gay cancer” as it was being called, an epidemic that seemed to spring from nowhere and then spread like a wicked wildfire.
In San Francisco it also struck like a bolt from the blue and purple unknown, its stigmata the purple-ish and dark reddish-blue marks of skin lesions — those herpes-like, cancerous tumors of Kaposi’s sarcoma — that began to dot faces and limbs and torsos with an ugliness that was unmistakable and the cause unknown. Right-wing televangelist Jerry Falwell called the lesions, which were seen as the defining illnesses of AIDS in the 1980s, to be the signs of Satan’s claim over sins of the flesh and God’s punishment for those same-sex sins, demons of a heaven-sent plague upon homosexuality.
“For a group of gay men, so into physical appearance, this was a disease whose very physical manifestations were horrifying,” says Daniel, one of the five people profiled in a new and deeply affecting documentary film, “We Were Here,” a gut-punch of a feature-length film by producer-director David Weissman, about the coming of AIDS to the Bay Area, and the human havoc it wrought.
This film is truly a moving picture. Co-presented with Reel Affirmations, as part of the 25th Annual FilmFest D.C. (now through April 17), it is playing tonight and Saturday night at the Regal Cinemas Gallery Place, on 7th Street, N.W., near Verizon Center. Each showing is at 6:30 p.m. followed by town meetings to discuss the film and its ramifications today in D.C. where the disease still flourishes.
Each one of the five in “We Were Here” is a witness, a survivor, and haunted in some indelible way by what they saw. Four of them are gay men (Daniel, Ed, Guy and Paul), who each contracted HIV yet somehow survived. One is a straight woman (Eileen) who ministered to the patients, as a nurse who cared about them as human beings, not clinical case studies.
Like Eileen, who appears to be a modern-day Florence Nightingale, each one is an angel, each able to say, “we were here.” Each is a survivor of the mysterious epidemic that moved through San Francisco in the 1980s with all the ferocity of an avenging angel, a grim reaper carrying off those who had sown such pleasure, but now so many of them faced death as a result.
Each is an eyewitness. At the skillful hand of filmmaker Weissman, who also earlier produced “The Cockettes,” a documentary about the campier side of the Bay Area, the testimony of the five is heartfelt and eloquent, bringing the kind of emotion that only those who experienced it first hand can bring.
Daniel’s voice is such an example. His voice is riveting, his gaze impossible to turn away from. He’s a modern-day Ancient Mariner come to tell us of how wrong things can get when bad things happen to good people.
He recalls that tragic time when no one could comprehend what was happening, as the virus burned its way through the carefree, almost heedless hedonism that came to the Bay Area after Stonewall in 1969, when hippies flocked to the Haight Ashbury and gays to the Castro. For a time all was well. But it was the sexual romp before the gathering storm.
Paul, who found his early calling in political action working with Harvey Milk, says, “I came to San Francisco with nothing but my backpack and my boyfriend.” He recalls that in the mid-1970s, “I believed that at that time in San Francisco there were nothing but crazy dreamers.”
Daniel went, recalling that, “I always wanted to meet a blond surfer but I was still in the closet, but then I came out with a bang,” in part spurred by being cast in the gay-themed play “The Boys in the Band.”
One observer, appearing in the film, puts it bluntly about that era: “If you took a lot of young gay men and asked them, ‘How much sex would you like to have?,’ the answer was, ‘A lot,’ and the sense was, sex is good, and more sex is good,” and after all, he adds, “We came to San Francisco to be gay.” Ed, who moved to the city in 1981, is equally blunt: “I was always in relationships, but they were open … My sexual outlet was always the bath houses and it was fun.”
But times were changing. In 1979, Harvey Milk was assassinated. In 1980, Ronald Reagan was elected president. The hopes and dreams of hippie hedonism didn’t last. But then, says Weissman, who documents it with clinical detail from archival footage, signs of trouble began to appear.
“People were wasting, losing so much weight, [San Francisco’s Castro neighborhood] looked like a concentration camp,” says Daniel. “You almost had to turn away, it was just too scary.” He felt haggard and haunted: “I was losing all the fat in my face and my butt — I would walk by a store window and jump, ‘Who was that?’ — I was skin and bones.”
At times death came with startling swiftness. Eileen, who chose to care for AIDS sufferers and then to work on clinical trials seeking pharmaceutical relief of the worst symptoms, says that in the hospital where she worked, “People were coming in with a KS lesion one day and were dead 10 days later.” Her own heart went out to them, but others shrank away in fear and ignorance, as some voices were raised calling for tattoos to be stenciled onto all persons diagnosed with HIV and some even called for packing them away into leper-like colonies.
“From the beginning,” she says, “I just couldn’t understand the homophobia that was going on and the fear of going into the [hospital] rooms.”
“There was nothing that unusual in that people are of course going to die,” says Ed, who speaks like a creative writer, a craft in which he earned a graduate degree. But in San Francisco, he says, “It’s just that it happened in a targeted community, to people who were disenfranchised, separated from their families.” But then a kind of miracle happened when people like Eileen stepped forward, as well as gay men who were not infected. In Ed’s words, “A whole different group of people stepped up and became their families.”
They got involved. Eileen joined ACT UP. Daniel fought his way back from depression and worked on the Names Project, which made the AIDS quilt.
Each of five was chosen, says Weissman, because they had a special story to tell, and the film delivers what they have to say with an emotional wallop. But more than that, he admits, “The city is also a character” in the film, which he calls “Very personal to me” and “a love letter to San Francisco,” where after some years living in Portland, Ore., he is now based. A commercial release is planned for later in the year.
Weissman, who is gay, was born in 1954 in Los Angeles, and never went to college, he explains, because he “lived through the hippie times.” He got into filmmaking in his late 20s. He says it was “something on the spur of the moment.” He took coursework at the City College of San Francisco, but says at first he never thought of himself as a documentarian. Instead, he produced a series of short comedies until finally, after “a moment of unexpected inspiration,” he made the 2001 acclaimed documentary, “The Cockettes,” about the Bay Area’s legendary theater troupe of hippies and drag queens.
“Some people worry that seeing a film like this will be a downer,” Weissman says. “But that’s definitely not the case. Instead, it’s a cathartic experience, healing and empowering.”
“Especially for young gay men today, who don’t know very much about our history,” Weissman says the film opens “a window about how we got where we are today, and the resilience our community has shown in the face of terrible adversity.”
Other gay-themed films slated for fest
The Washington, D.C. 25th annual international film festival event comes alive this week overflowing the Historic Lincoln Theatre on U Street, AMC Mazza Gallerie, Regal Gallery Place at Verizon Center on 7th Street N.W., the Landmark E Street Cinemas, the Avalon and other venues through April 17.
“We know for sure that people in D.C. are interested in films other than Hollywood films,” says Tony Gittens, who founded the festival in 1987.
Themes include “Justice Matters,” a cluster of films focusing on social justice issues; Global Rhythms, a special section of music films; Short Cuts, eight films less than feature length from around the world; and “Lunafest,” nearly 90 minutes of short films for, by and about women. Tickets for most films are $11, he says, and shows tend to sell out, so buying tickets online is the smart bet.
For a complete list of films and events, which include “freebies” for children and seniors, and to purchase tickets, visit filmfestdc.org or call 888-996-4774 from 10 a.m.-6 p.m. Monday through Friday and from noon-5 p.m. on weekends. Tickets may also be purchased at the theater on the day of the show, with the box office opening one hour before the venue’s first screening of the day.
In addition to “We Were Here,” three others have LGBT appeal:
“Circumstance” (“Sharayet”) in Persian with English subtitles 9 p.m. tonight and 6 p.m. Saturday at Regal Cinemas Gallery Place. Directed by Maryam Keshavasrz, this joint French-Iranian-USA production won this year’s Sundance Film Festival audience award. A young Iranian girl, still in her teens, Atafeh, and her best friend Shireen, experiment with mutual sexual attraction amid the subculture of Tehran’s underground art scene and face familial disapproval.
“For 80 Days” (“80 egunean”) in Spanish with English subtitles co-presented with the Embassy of Spain at 7:30 p.m. Sunday and 8:30 p.m. Monday at the Avalon Theatre, 5612 Connecticut Ave. N.W. Directed by Jon Garano and Jose Maria Goenaga, this Spanish entry depicts two women, one of them lesbian, who were best friends in youth, who meet again by accident 50 years later.
“Loose Cannons” (“Mine Vaganti”) in Italian with English subtitles screens at 9 p.m. tonight and 7 p.m. Saturday at AMC Mazza Gallery, 5300 Wisconsin Ave. N.W.
Directed by Ferzan Ozpetek, the films depicts a large, eccentric family whose patriarch puts pressure on the two sons, who are gay, to follow in the family business.
Advice
I make more money than my partner and getting resentful
She’s taking advantage of a joint credit card
Hi Michael,
I make a fair amount more money than my girlfriend does and I’m happy to contribute more to our life (we are both in our 20s and living together).
But Meg doesn’t seem to care how much money she spends and then asks me to front her when she’s running low. She seldom pays me back.
Last week she had a big night on the town with her best friend (formerly her girlfriend) for the friend’s 30th birthday. She hired a limo and spent a lot on drinks and dinner. She put the entire night on our joint card which we are only supposed to use for shared household expenses, because she had maxed out her own card. Of course I will wind up paying for it. (And I am slightly jealous. Why am I paying for her evening out with her former GF?)
I pay for all sorts of stuff all the time because her credit card gets too big for her budget.
And somehow I almost never end up getting her share of the rent, which is already prorated according to our incomes.
She always tells me she’ll pay me back but her tab pretty much just keeps getting bigger.
If I bring this up with her, she tells me I am cheap because I make a lot and we’re a couple; and if she made more, she’d have no problem sharing everything with me.
Am I just being ungenerous? I don’t know. Sometimes I think she’s an ingrate, but then I think if you’re in love, you shouldn’t be thinking of money, just taking care of the person you love.
Also, although I make more than she does, I’m by no means rich. I have my own student loans, and paying for the bulk of our lifestyle stretches me thin some months.
Michael replies:
For starters: Most couples must contend with some version of your struggle with Meg, because most couples have some income disparity.
Do you maintain a lifestyle that both of you can afford? That works for some relationships where the lower earner may not want to feel indebted to the partner who makes more. Other couples work out a system where they pay for expenses in proportion to their income. And in some instances, the higher earner may have a “what’s mine is yours” philosophy and the lower earner is OK with that.
What matters is that both partners come to a mutual agreement and are comfortable with the arrangement. In other words, they collaborate.
That’s not the case with you and Meg. You sound resentful, angry, and feeling like Meg is taking advantage of you.
It’s great to be generous in your relationship, but it’s also important to have a boundary when you think it’s important to have a boundary. Yet you’re continuing to subsidize Meg even when you have trouble making your own ends meet.
Important question: Have you told Meg that you’re stretched thin some months? If not, I’d be curious as to how you’ve made that decision. If so, I’d be curious as to Meg’s response.
If you don’t want to keep serving as Meg’s piggy bank, what is stopping you?
There’s a great saying in psychotherapy: If it’s hysterical, it’s historical. Meaning, our “big” actions and reactions have their roots in our history.
Think about your life history: How does it make sense that you are acting like a powerless victim?
Is not having a boundary an old and familiar dynamic for you? Were there important players in your life—for example, your parents—who insisted it was their way or the highway? Or perhaps you learned as a kid that if you ever said “no” to your friends, there’d be negative consequences?
Now ask yourself what might be keeping you stuck in a relationship of resentment. Are you re-creating an old and familiar dynamic? Sometimes we keep putting ourselves in the same miserable situation, over and over again. What’s familiar can be comfortable, even if it’s miserable; and we may be trying to get some understanding of the dynamic and some power over it, to finally get it right.
I’m just speculating here, to encourage you to think for yourself why you are staying in the dynamic you describe. You haven’t mentioned anything positive about your relationship, or about Meg.
Another possibility: I wonder if you might be so fearful of being alone that you’re willing to tolerate all sorts of treatment in order to stay in your relationship. Or perhaps you don’t think you deserve to be treated any better than this.
Again, if this is the case, where might this belief be coming from? Understanding why we are stuck in behaviors that keep us miserable can help us to get unstuck.
You have an opportunity to do something different here: Set a boundary and take power over your life. Perhaps if you did so, Meg would surprise you by shifting her stance, which would be good news if you have some good reasons to stay. Or perhaps she would not. Your challenge now is to get some sense of what’s holding you back, if you want something different for yourself. And unless you act on your own behalf, you will stay in this position.
One more point to consider, regarding Meg’s dinner date with her ex: Whether or not anything is going on, I take your jealousy as a sign that you don’t trust Meg. And without trust, you can’t have a decent relationship.
Michael Radkowsky, Psy.D. is a licensed psychologist who works with couples and individuals in D.C. He can be found online at michaelradkowsky.com. All identifying information has been changed for reasons of confidentiality. Have a question? Send it to [email protected].
Real Estate
April showers bring May flowers in life — and in real estate
Third time’s the charm for buyer plagued with problems
Working in the real estate sector in D.C. can be as uniquely “D.C.” as the residents feel about their own city. On any given day, someone could be selling a home that their grandmother bought, passed on to the relatives, and the transfer of generational wealth continues. In that same transaction, the beginning steps of building of generational wealth could be taking place.
Across town, an international buyer could be looking for a condo with very specific characteristics that remind them of the way things are “back home.” Maybe they want to live in a building with a pool because they grew up by the sea. Maybe they want a large kitchen so they can cook grandma’s recipes. Maybe they will be on MSNBC once a month and need to have a home office fit for those Zoom sessions where they will be live on air, or recording their podcast. Perhaps they play the saxophone and want a building with thick walls so they can make a joyful noise without causing their neighbors to file a cease-and-desist order.
What I found fascinating was getting to know my buyers. Why were they purchasing their property? What did they want to do with it? Was this their grandmother’s dream that they would have a place of their own someday? Did they finally think they would write that award-winning play in the home office? What dreams were going to be fulfilled while taking part in this transaction?
Somedays, the muck and paperwork slog of navigating home inspection items and financing checklists could get to be distracting at best, and almost downright disheartening at worst.
One of my clients was under contract on THREE places before we finally closed on a home. One building was discovered to have financing issues, and the residents were not keeping up with their condo fees. Another building had an issue with the title to the unit, which meant the seller could not sell the home for at least another year until that legal snag was resolved. As the months rolled by, she was losing heart and feeling defeated. When we finally found the third home, everything seemed great – and then about two weeks before the settlement, the rains came down and the windows leaked into the bedrooms.
Another delay. (Our THIRD). This time, for several more weeks.
I think she wanted to pack a suitcase, go to the airport, get on a plane somewhere and never come back. What ultimately happened? The building repaired the windows, the seller’s insurance replaced the hardwood floors, and she bought her first condo, which she still enjoys to this day.
As Dolly Parton says, “If you want the rainbow, you’ve got to put up with a little rain.” And finally, after months of looking, waiting, and overcoming obstacles, the rainbow peeked out from behind the clouds.
Joseph Hudson is a referral agent with Metro Referrals. He can be reached at 703-587-0597 or [email protected].
Autos
Sporty sedans: BMW 530i xDrive, Mercedes AMG CLA 3
Tariffs are here and the result is financial chaos
It’s official: Tariffs are here, and the result is financial chaos.
So, what to do when purchasing a new vehicle? If you need one in the not-so-distant future, buy sooner (like yesterday) rather than later. Expect prices to rise quickly, as inventory dwindles, demand soars, and automaker incentives evaporate. Of course, if a new ride isn’t a priority for at least a year or three, then hold off until the dust settles.
But for those of you looking for new wheels now, I recently drove two sport sedans that were a pleasant reprieve from the usual plethora of pickups, minivans, and SUVs.
BMW 530i xDRIVE
$63,000
MPG: 28 city/35 highway
0 to 60 mph: 5.5 seconds
Cargo space: 18.4 cu. ft.
PROS: Rakish looks. Race-car vibe. Rock-star amenities.
CONS: Rad-but-quirky infotainment system. Rich price.
IN A NUTSHELL: Classic good looks, from the iconic grille and swept-back headlights to chiseled side panels and a tasteful tush. For a gearhead like me, the BMW 530i xDrive — completely redesigned last year — is as rapturous as Michelangelo’s David. Everything here is in proportion, from the design to the drivetrain, which — along with a gutsy 255-hp turbo and all-wheel drive — helps deliver a divine experience behind the wheel. Even better, my test car came equipped with the heavenly M-Sport Package: 21-inch wheels, athletic suspension, and assorted styling upgrades.
A tech-laden cabin is outfitted with a sparkly 12.3-inch digital instrument cluster and 14.9-inch touchscreen infotainment system. With the windshield head-up display and a slew of knobs and toggle switches in the center console and on the steering wheel, I wondered if this is how it feels to pilot the Space Shuttle. There is even a back-lit interaction bar with touch-sensitive controls to adjust vent direction and other climate control settings.
All this gadgetry takes some getting used to, but the overall effect is dazzling. While a 12-speaker Harman Kardon stereo comes standard, I was jammin’ to the 16-speaker Bowers & Wilkins premium audio. Of course, such options add up quickly (on my test car, the extras totaled $13,000).
Just how fun is this car? In my favorite episode of “Hacks,” sassy Jean Smart drives a rockin’ Rolls Royce Wraith. Trust me, this four-door BMW is every bit the badass as that $300,000 super coupe.
MERCEDES AMG CLA 35
$58,000
MPG: 22 city/29 highway
0 to 60 mph: 4.8 seconds
Cargo space: 11.6 cu. ft.
PROS: Slick styling. Spiffy cabin. Sublime seats.
CONS: Smallish trunk. So-so rear headroom and legroom.
IN A NUTSHELL: Need a smaller sedan that’s just as marvy as the midsize BMW i530? Look no further than the compact Mercedes CLA-Class, which is 14 inches shorter. That’s a benefit when jockeying for parking or navigating rush hour.
Another plus: This is Mercedes’s least expensive sedan, available in three trim levels. All come with the same potent turbo but in varying power levels. The base model starts at $46,000, but I tested the first of two high-performance versions: the AMG CLA 35, which costs $12,000 more. You can open your wallet even further to snag the $67,000 AMG CLA 45.
But why bother? The AMG CLA 35 is plenty quick — faster than the BMW i530 — and boasts sport-tuned brakes, deft handling and a gritty-sounding exhaust system. The laundry list of standard features includes all-wheel drive, automated parking, gobs of the latest safety gizmos and even something called “safe-exit assist,” which prevents passengers from opening a door into traffic or speeding cyclists.
The interior is pure Mercedes, with top-notch materials, customizable ambient lighting and Burmester surround-sound audio. The overall layout—sleek and modern, but with elegant stitching in the seats and on the door panels and dashboard—is comfortable and user-friendly. Digital displays and touchscreens are similar to what’s in the BMW i530, just smaller.
Size matters, of course, which is why this vehicle’s shorter length can be a blessing but also a curse, especially when trying to squeeze passengers with longer legs into the backseats. And the dramatically sloped roofline, attractive from the outside, limits the amount of rear headroom and cargo space. Thank the automotive gods for panoramic sunroofs, which—at least for anyone in the front seats—makes this cabin feel surprisingly spacious.
PDAB: A mysterious acronym that could affect your health
I make more money than my partner and getting resentful
D.C. liquor board extends drinking hours for WorldPride
PHOTOS: Victory Fund National Champagne Brunch
Executive director of LGBTQ Catholic group to travel to Rome for conclave
TRAITOR: Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has blood on his hands
Potential Pope Francis successor views homosexuality as an ‘abomination’
Jacob Elordi rides high in ‘On Swift Horses’
Liberal Party wins Canadian election
