Connect with us

Living

Surviving Oscar

Gay writer scores Academy nomination for debut film about AIDS

Published

on

How to Survive a Plague, AIDS, HIV, gay news, ACT UP, Washington Blade
How to Survive a Plague, AIDS, HIV, gay news, ACT UP, Washington Blade

A scene from David France’s harrowing documentary ‘How to Survive a Plague.’ The film has its Oscar rendezvous Sunday night at the Dolby Theatre in Hollywood where its up for Best Documentary. (Photo courtesy Sundance Selects)

It sounds so straightforward — the New York Public Library had a collection of videotapes AIDS activists made decades ago with vintage camcorders back when they were heavy behemoths you had to rest on your shoulder with full-size VHS or Beta tapes inside. Filmmaker/journalist David France combed painstakingly through the clips to compose his powerful 2012 documentary “How to Survive a Plague.”

But how this was achieved — what format was the footage stored in? What condition was it in? Could anyone go in and check these out with a library card? How did France pull this off?

In some ways, it’s the least interesting part of the film’s story, which is told via a sobering chronology of video footage shot by angry protesters — the kind the Religious Right calls “militant homosexual activists.”

The film has been almost universally praised. The New York Times called it “inspiring” and crackling with “currents of rage, fear, fiery determination and finally triumph.” It has a 100 percent freshness rating among critics on Rotten Tomatoes (a film quality-ranking site), several awards including “best documentary” from the Boston Society of Film Critics. This weekend it’s up for both an Independent Spirit Award and an Oscar. Gold Derby, a site that predicts entertainment industry awards, gives it a 4/1 chance at winning the Oscar (behind “Searching for Sugar Man” which it gives 13/8 odds). “5 Broken Cameras,” “The Gatekeepers” and “The Invisible War” (made by the “Outrage” team of Kirby Dick and Amy Ziering) are also nominated.

For “Plauge,” France took footage — some of which was housed at the New York Public Library — shot by 31 videographers and paces it chronologically to the story of the formation of ACT UP (AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power), a group that formed in March 1987 in a spirit of extreme frustration during a speech activist (and “Normal Heart” playwright) Larry Kramer gave at the Lesbian and Gay Community Services Center in New York.

France, during a lengthy phone interview last weekend before he was scheduled to fly to Los Angeles on Tuesday, gladly shares the logistics behind “Plague’s” formation.

A veteran investigative journalist, author and GLAAD Media Award winner (for a GQ piece on gays in Iraq) who’s had his work published in everything from the New Yorker to Ladies’ Home Journal, France says he was a graduate student during the time AIDS hit in the early 1980s and having written about it extensively over the years, he knew activists had brought cameras to their protests. And yes, the process of crafting “Plague” was a lot more involved than simply checking tapes out of the library.

“The tapes from the library are actually just a small portion of the footage you see in the film,” France, who’s gay, says. “That’s really the first door I went through, this archive of AIDS activism video that’s housed in the Manuscript Division of the New York Library, where you go if you want to read Lincoln’s letters. It’s an exclusive corner of the library that’s not accessible to the general public and everybody’s going around wearing white gloves and handling antiquities. In one corner, they have a television and a VCR and you watch the AIDS footage recorded in those early days. It’s just raw footage, not really ever intended for public view. Some of it you’ll be watching and all of a sudden it will go to a gay porn video, which just happened to be on the same tape they recorded on.”

France says the library kept all the tapes — recorded in every home video format on the market in those years as one might imagine — but had transferred them all to the Betacam SP format, a higher resolution tape on larger cassettes that for years was the broadcast standard and is still in use today. France convinced the library to let him take select footage to a nearby production lab and have it digitized. He ended up with about 100 hours and says the process became difficult as the project moved along.

“They’re really not accustomed to working on a film production schedule, so trying to get them to hurry got more and more difficult as we went along,” he says.

And that was just the starting point — in the library footage, France saw other people holding video cameras. He started tracking them down one by one and eventually found a group of people, many long-time AIDS survivors themselves, who had videotape footage they had never revisited. Again, formats remained a challenge.

“We had all this stuff in so many different formats from private collections,” he says. “We were constantly scouring Craigslist and eBay for decks that would play these old tapes. We ended up with about 800 hours and that really became the building blocks of the film.”

And yes, France says it did take some persuasion to get these individuals to hand over their footage.

France says, “A lot of these people had moved on but I think now have started to see the real value in this footage. I think they gradually started to realize, that yes, enough time has passed and now is the time to really use it and this is the project.”

France said his project is timely and important because many of the other landmark AIDS pieces, from Kramer’s play to Randy Shilts’ “And the Band Played On” were written before the era of anti-retroviral therapy when HIV morphed into a more manageable condition.

He says the film is important for anyone interested in the AIDS fight to see.

“There were even people in ACT UP who didn’t know the outcomes of many of these things,” he says. “If you think you know the story of AIDS, this film will surprise you and that goes for just about everybody.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwhFS1mUaVY

WASHINGTON BLADE: Will this be your first time at the Academy Awards?

DAVID FRANCE: Yes. I’ve never gotten any closer before than my television screen.

BLADE: Have you watched very often over the years?

FRANCE: Oh yeah. My boyfriend and I always have an Oscar party. With ballots and everything. I’ve never won.

BLADE: What’s your favorite Oscar memory?

FRANCE: Tom Hanks’ acceptance speech when he won for “Philadelphia.” That’s really seared in my memory.

BLADE: What did you think of Michael Moore’s controversial speech when he won the category you’re up for? Ballsy or inappropriate for the occasion?

FRANCE: I think if you’ve got an audience of a billion people and you’ve got something to say, you need to say it. That’s not to say I’m intending any surprises should I have that opportunity.

BLADE: Have you seen the competition?

FRANCE: Of course. They’re all brilliant films.

BLADE: If you win, where will you put Oscar?

FRANCE? I’m not sure. I keep the other awards we’ve won in the production office so everyone on the crew can enjoy them and hopefully see their own contribution but if we get this little gold thing, I’m not sure. I have no idea.

BLADE: Do you feel AIDS, as horrible as it was and is, put gay issues on the national radar and that ended up being a silver lining to the cloud or is that an absurd oversimplification?

FRANCE? No, it’s absolutely true. Before that, gay people were entirely disenfranchised and we were not seen as being contributing members to the culture at all. We had no role whatsoever in civic life … From those ashes (of AIDS), now we have a president who acknowledges us as human beings and Stonewall is mentioned in the same breath as Seneca Falls.

BLADE: How did you feel when Dustin Lance Black won for “Milk”?

FRANCE: I felt it was incredible. He gave a great speech and I thought it was a very, very good movie.

BLADE: Did you plan all along to submit it for a nomination? What’s the process like?

FRANCE: There are all kinds of rules about it playing in New York and L.A. and being reviewed by the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times and that’s just the first threshold. I was lucky I had a distributor who saw the potential for the film early on and made sure we did everything we needed to do for both the Oscars and the Independent Spirit Awards. … Anytime you make a film, sure, you fantasize about getting an Oscar nomination and it’s really just because you want more people to see it. An Oscar bump is a tremendous thing.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Advice

I don’t see the point in a relationship 

Life is short and I want to do whatever I want

Published

on

Going through life with a partner isn’t for everyone. (Photo by yanik88/Bigstock)

Michael,

I’m 34, and after being on the dating scene for about 12 years, I’m coming to the conclusion that I don’t want to be in a relationship. 

I don’t love hanging out with the same person over and over again. I don’t feel all gooey when I’ve been with someone for a while. I run out of things to say, and also, it just gets boring.

I like my space. I don’t like having to share the bathroom or have someone next to me all night, especially when they want to go to sleep holding me. I know that sounds like heaven to a lot of people but it just feels intrusive to me. 

It’s a pain to have to compromise what I want to do. When I want to go someplace on vacation, or try a restaurant, or get up early to go to the gym, or sleep in, I don’t want to have to run that by someone else and get their OK. Life’s short. I want to do what I want to do.

I feel like we are constantly bombarded with the message to date and find a mate, but I don’t really see the point.  I don’t think I’m an introvert—I have a lot of friends—but I also like to spend time by myself and not be accountable to anyone.

When I think about marriage, it seems like a very old-fashioned concept, developed for straight people who want to have children. Historically you needed one person to work and another one to stay home and raise the kids. And you needed to stay together to give your kids two parents and a stable home. I get that.

But if I’m not having kids, what’s the point? I don’t need a husband to have sex. I can and do hook up all the time. It’s so easy to find someone online. And I get to have a lot more variety when I’m single than when I’m dating. Even though my relationships are always open, when I am dating someone, I always hook up a lot less, because I have to worry about the boyfriend’s feelings being hurt if I hook up “too much.”

I know I sound unromantic and maybe selfish but this is how I see it.  

My friends are all about having a boyfriend. They think I’m being ridiculous. Can I get another opinion?

Michael replies:

You make great points. Relationships do require us to give up some of our independence. They can feel stifling at times. And when the excitement of a new partner fades, things will at times feel “boring” in all sorts of ways, including sex. You can choose to avoid all of this by remaining single.

But relationships also give us tremendous overlapping opportunities to grow, including:

Being pushed to develop a clear sense of self: When we must constantly decide what we are willing to do or not do as part of a couple; and when our partner inevitably and frequently has interests, values, and priorities that conflict with ours, then we are challenged, over and over, to decide what is most important to us and how we want to live our lives.

Frequent opportunities to build resilience: All those old issues from our past that get us upset or riled up? We have to work through them so that we can stay (pretty) calm rather than losing our minds when our buttons are pressed.  

Improving our ability to have hard conversations – and without rancor: Unless we’re able to disagree, speak up, or confront when it’s important to do so, we are going to twist ourselves into a pretzel striving to accommodate the other person. And being able to engage in tough talks in a loving way is necessary if we want to have a loving relationship.

Becoming a more generous person: You wrote that you like to have things your way. But part of life, whether or not we are partnered, involves being thoughtful, considerate, and willing to put someone else first at times. Great relationships require us to do all of these things regularly—and many of us find that contributing to the happiness of someone we care about can increase our own happiness.

Besides these ongoing challenges, relationships give us the experience of someone knowing us deeply, and knowing someone deeply.  There can be great comfort in going through life with someone with whom we have this intimate connection, along with ongoing shared experiences of trust, support, comfort, and love. Long-term companionship is also an adventure: Can we keep the relationship vibrant and fun as we both keep changing over time? 

If you choose to remain single: Many people play their friendships on the easy setting, keeping things pleasant, on-the-surface, and non-confrontational; and cutting people off when things aren’t going well. Hanging in there to deal with the rough stuff can lead to deeper, longer friendships, and plenty of personal growth.

I do have a question for you: I am curious what sort of relationships you saw growing up, and what your own relationship experiences have been.  

Intimate relationships aren’t for everyone, and you get to decide what is right for you. But if your negative view of relationships is influenced by having witnessed or experienced intrusive or just plain awful relationships, maybe you want to do some work (therapy, for example) to heal from this stuff, rather than letting your past limit your future. A healthy relationship means being part of a couple while also remaining a vibrant individual, not being stifled, bored, and losing your independence.  

(Michael Radkowsky, Psy.D. is a licensed psychologist who works with couples and individuals in D.C., Maryland, Virginia, and New York. 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].)

Continue Reading

Autos

Wagons ho! High-class, head-turning haulers

Automakers still offer a few good traditional station wagons

Published

on

2026 Volvo V60 Cross Country

As a teenager, one of the first cars I drove — and fell in love with — was our family’s hulking full-size wagon. It stretched over 19 feet in length and weighed a whopping 5,300 pounds. That’s three feet longer and 1,000 heavier than, say, a Ford Explorer today. 

But this Leviathan felt safe and practical, especially when tootling around town with my crew or traveling solo cross-country. Of course, this hauler was also an eco-disaster. 

Luckily, that’s not the case today. And even though the number of traditional station wagons keeps shrinking, automakers are still offering a few gems.    

VOLVO V60 CROSS COUNTRY

$54,000

MPG: 23 city/31 highway

0 to 60 mph: 6.6 seconds

Cargo space: 51 cu. ft. (rear seats folded)

PROS: Elegant design. Composed handling. Top safety features.

CONS: So-so power. Modest rear legroom. Only two trim levels.    

The 2026 Volvo V60 Cross Country doesn’t cry for attention — and that’s the point. This is the automotive equivalent of Kristen Stewart, a celebrity who’s confident in her own skin and sees no need to post about it. 

Under the hood, there’s a four-cylinder turbo engine paired with a mild-hybrid system, producing 247 horsepower. You won’t outrun other drivers, but there is a sense of calm authority when accelerating. The standard all-wheel drive and 8.1 inches of ground clearance mean this wagon is ready for dirt roads, bad weather or a spontaneous weekend jaunt. 

And inside? Scandinavian minimalism at its finest. Clean lines. Gorgeous materials. Google-based infotainment that mostly works — though occasionally the system could be a bit faster, at least for my taste. The ride is smooth, composed and quiet, even if acceleration feels more “measured sip” than “espresso shot.” 

But here’s the twist: After more than a decade, this is the final Volvo wagon in the U.S. Its farewell tour ends in 2026. That alone gives it collector-car status.

MERCEDES-AMG E53 WAGON

$95,000

MPG: 21 city/25 highway

0 to 60 mph: 3.4 seconds

Cargo space: 64.6 cu. ft. (rear seats folded)

PROS: Supercar vibe. Hybrid versatility. Stunning interior.

CONS: Some fussy controls. Can feel heavy when cornering.    

If the Volvo V60 Cross Country is subtle, the 2026 Mercedes-AMG E53 Wagon is a screamer. It’s like being at a Lil Nas X concert: flashy, high energy, and full of shock and awe.  

This performance wagon — a plug-in hybrid, no less — pushes well over 500 horsepower (and in some configurations over 600 horsepower), launching from 0 to 60 mph as fast as a $300,000 Aston Martin supercar.

Yes, deep down, this is still a wagon. But you also can do a Costco run in something that could embarrass sports cars at a stoplight. That duality is delicious.

Inside, Mercedes leans all the way in. The high-tech Superscreen setup stretches across the dash. Ambient lighting glows like a curated art installation. The 4D surround-sound audio literally pulses through the seats. It’s immersive. Borderline excessive. And entirely the point.

Rear-axle steering helps mask the size of this car, but there’s no hiding the weight — it’s a big, powerful machine. Still, this hauler handles far better than physics suggests it should.

PORSCHE TAYCAN CROSS TURISMO

$121,000

Range: 265 miles

0 to 60 mph: 2.8 seconds

Cargo space: 41 cu. ft. (rear seats folded)

PROS: Lightning fast. Space-age design. EV smoothness.

CONS: Very pricey. Options add up quickly. Limited rear visibility.    

The Porsche Taycan Cross Turismo completely rewrites the wagon formula. Fully electric. Shockingly fast. Designed like it belongs in the Louvre.

Performance is instant. Depending on trim level, you’re looking at 0-to-60 mph in less than 3 seconds. No exuberant engine noise — just that smooth, purring EV surge.

Handling? Pure Porsche. Low center of gravity thanks to the battery-pack placement. Precision that makes winding roads feel like choreography. And then — hello — there’s also a Gravel Mode for light off-road use.

Inside, the style is restrained but high-tech. Digital displays dominate, including a 10.3-inch passenger side touchscreen. Yet the layout feels intentional rather than overwhelming. Build quality is exceptional. Options, including leather-free materials and an active-leveling system for hard cornering, are endless — and expensive.

Range varies by model. But as with any EV, your lifestyle (and charging access) matters. 

Overall, this is a wagon that looks and behaves like one helluva class act.

Continue Reading

Advice

My family voted for Trump and I cut off contact

Now my father is ill and I don’t know what to do

Published

on

How should you react when family members support Trump? (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

Dear Michael,

I stopped talking to my family last year because they all voted for Trump. It’s not like they didn’t know whom they were voting for — they’d already had four years of seeing him in action.

I decided that I couldn’t remain in contact with people whom I felt wanted to take away my rights as a gay man. That is what they essentially did by voting for Trump.

They had come to my wedding in 2012, they had welcomed my husband and me into their homes for the holidays for our entire relationship, so I couldn’t believe how little they actually cared about me and my community. I was profoundly hurt.

They’ve reached out but I have been too angry at their hypocrisy to engage in more than a perfunctory way. I miss them, sure, but as I’ve watched our community be attacked, I just get so angry that I don’t want to talk. I certainly don’t want to hear them justify bigotry and hatred.

Now one of my siblings has reached out to let me know that my father’s health is rapidly declining. I’m wondering if I should rethink my decision and reach out to him, maybe even visit, before he dies.

But then I think of ICE’s attack on our country and the removal of the Pride flag from Stonewall and I don’t want to talk to people who support what is happening to vulnerable, marginalized people and the LGBTQ community.

My father was a good father to me. Even when I first came out to him, he was loving and supportive. I can’t square his behavior personally toward me with his support of this regime. The hypocrisy makes me so angry. How could he purport to love me and then vote against my freedoms?

I would love some suggestions about how to square my two opposing viewpoints.

Michael replies:

Many years ago, a great mentor taught me that the one thing you can count on in a relationship is learning to tolerate disappointment: Both being a disappointment, and being disappointed in the other person. This is true for love relationships and it’s also true for other significant relationships. All of us are different in some major ways and so we are bound at times to disappoint our loved ones in major ways, and to be disappointed by them in major ways.

That is why I’m not a fan of purity tests. To expect that someone must think like you (much less vote like you) in order for you to have a relationship with them is unrealistic, impractical, and sometimes damaging.

Of course, a person may hold some beliefs that give you reason not to want to have any connection to them. But is that the case here?

From your description, your family has always been loving and supportive of you as a gay man. That is no small thing. They seem to care about you enough to have continued to reach out, even though you have stopped talking to them. 

Perhaps they had some other reasons for voting as they did, other than to roll back LGBTQ rights and to attack immigrants.

Instead of wondering how they could be so hypocritical, how about talking with them and striving to understand their choices? I don’t know what they will say, and you may hear different answers from your various family members. But at least you will get some clarity, rather than presuming that they made their voting choices from a place of malice. Then you will be in a better position to decide if you want a relationship going forward.

Another point to consider: Very few things are set in stone. Even if your family made their voting choices based on holding positions that you neither like nor respect, they may be open to shifting their views over time. One way to perhaps influence their thinking is by engaging with them, sharing your thoughts, and asking them to consider the possible consequences of their actions. If you choose to re-engage with them, two points to consider: 

First, don’t expect that you will change their minds. You can advocate for what you want, but you have to let go of the results.

Second, they are more likely to consider your points if you do not approach them from a judgmental, self-righteous stance. 

Many years ago, when I was newly a vegetarian, I was eager to challenge and “educate” friends who weren’t following my dietary ideas. Guess what? It didn’t work. Then I got some great advice: A great way to influence others to consider eating fewer animals was to serve them delicious vegetarian food.

The same point is true here. We can’t beat people over the head to agree with us. But if we approach them with some kindness, rather than with the certainty that we hold the moral high ground, we may help them see a bigger picture.

And sometimes, we too may see a bigger picture.

Michael Radkowsky, Psy.D. is a licensed psychologist who works with couples and individuals in D.C., Maryland, Virginia, and New York. 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].

Continue Reading

Popular