Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

The Normal Heart (HBO)

Tara Ariano

Recommended Posts

Rinaldo

Rinaldo

I'll be very interested to see this. I saw the recent Broadway revival of The Normal Heart and was moved, especially by the work of the quite exceptional cast. The HBO cast is mostly different, with Joe Mantello (one of the best actors of my theatergoing experience, who pretty much gave up acting for directing after Angels in America) demoted from the leading role to a secondary one. The play itself I would call "historically important" or "necessary" rather than great or even always good. But it will always have a secure place because of that importance (I remember when it was new and said things that needed saying), and it's possible that adaptation for film might even improve its shape. We'll see.

  • Love 1
Rinaldo

Rinaldo

I'm very pleased with how it came out. The melange of different kinds of scenes -- personal, political, emotional -- works better on film, and better yet with each one given its distinct setting. Mark Ruffalo, Matt Bomer, Jim Parsons all did admirably, and I'm especially glad that we now have evidence on film of what a great actor Joe Mantello is, just in his one big speech. Good job, all.

  • Love 1
LADreamr

LADreamr

I was very anxious to see this, and it didn't disappoint.  I was getting a bit impatient for last night to get here, so I spent the weekend watching other AIDS-related films (Angels in America, How to Survive a Plague, And the Band Played On, and a few others).  The Normal Heart stands out with its anger and rawness, and that's precisely what I like about it.  

 

I was involved with AIDS from the beginning, from being a bit obsessed with it, to losing friends and an adored family member, and even having my own scare: a false positive that took an agonizing six weeks at that time (1991) to clear up.  And even then my blood bank, for whom I was a regular contributor, said they could never take my blood again (and frankly, after the callous way they handled the situation, I wasn't offering.  I took my donations to the Red Cross).

 

But it wasn't just watching my loved ones waste away that was horrible; it was watching the treatment of the patients.  Everyone was so scared and no one knew anything, and that panic turned into theories about how you could get infected that today would sound preposterous (can a mosquito bite an AIDS patient, and then a healthy person and infect them?), and anyone suffering with it seemed to be put in a category that was so dehumanizing, just when they needed all the love and support they could get.

 

I still do everything I can: I get updates from the CDC, volunteer with Project Angel Food, run the LA Marathon for AIDS Project LA; but there is always a sense of not having done enough, or not being able to.

 

It's impossible to capture just what that time really felt like, and the emotional chaos of it, but I think they did a very good job of it with this production, in that a lot of it was very hard to watch.  I've read reviews that call Ned's outrage annoying, but what the hell else was he supposed to do?  I thank God for people like Larry Kramer and Bobbi Campbell and ACT UP and Roger Gail Lyon and Tony Kushner and Elizabeth Taylor and Elton John and all the loud mouths who wouldn't shut up, because where would be now without them?  "Thank you" doesn't seem adequate.

  • Love 20
walnutqueen

walnutqueen

Great post, LADreamr.  Remembering those awful early years of panic and ignorance, when so little was known and even less was being done is gut wrenching. 

 

The doc referring to her polio as something nobody gets anymore was a little twist of irony, since the WHO just declared the spread of polio an international public health emergency.   How quickly our world changes.

  • Love 1
iMonrey

iMonrey

I didn't think it was very well written. The dialogue seemed overly didactic and expository. I agree there were some great performances and I'm sure Mark Ruffalo and Matt Bomer are going to take home Emmy awards (probably Julia Roberts too); this is the kind of thing that has Emmy written all over it. But I found myself cringing or at least rolling my eyes at a lot of the dialogue.

fastiller

fastiller

From Tara's write up:

 

... Ned gave a fake name, and didn't remember Felix when they met again because he'd kept his eyes squeezed shut during their first encounter (which...how? Who hooks up with Matt Bomer and doesn't gaze at him in stunned awe the whole time because they can't believe a person that beautiful is even walking around on earth?). Real love has come late for Ned, which means he appreciates what a rare gift it actually is.

 

 

So, so true.

 

As previously mentioned, I'd be very surprised if there aren't at least 5 Emmy nominations from this (overall movie, Ruffalo, Bomer, Parsons, Roberts, perhaps Kitsch).  Bomer's acting was amazing, even before the 'ugly the actor up for the award' turn.

 

And walnutqueen, I also noted the irony of the 'polio's gone' comment.

  • Love 2
spaceytraci1208

spaceytraci1208

I loved the performances in this movie; Jim Parsons' character's collection of rolodex cards was so sad and a great visual statement. The scene with Julia Roberts and the congressmen(?) when she loses her shit took me back to her performance in Erin Brokovich. She does pissed-off very well.

 

I had a lump in my throat the entire movie...but I didn't actually shed tears until the end when Ned and his brother see each other in the hallway at the hospital.

Lady Calypso

Lady Calypso

I really liked the film. Now, for a Ryan Murphy production, I expected it to not be that good and had my expectations at a cautious level. Although some scenes didn't work for me (I wasn't a huge fan of the cinematography of Ned/Felix's first encounter and the subway scene), overall the film did resonate with me in a way that will make me want to see the film again. Everyone's acting was superb. I knew that Ruffalo had it in him to do this, and I also knew Bomer had it in him (and they both certainly exceeded my expectations) but Parsons genuinely surprised me. I have only seen a few episodes of the Big Bang Theory, mind you, so I didn't really know what he was capable until watching him in this. 

 

Amazing job by the cast and crew. There may have been some parts I didn't like (some of the speeches for me went on too long) but overall, fantastic job on the film and one that has to be Emmy-nominated.

fastiller

fastiller

LADreamr, I just now had a chance to read your post fully and your relationship with AIDS sounds very much like my own. I did a bunch of volunteering with AIDS-related groups in the late 80s; I chalk up my decision to do so directly to having seen this play ('87 or '88) during secondary school.  When I came back from secondary school (I was in school in Ireland; my immediate family was in NYC), to New York it was just natural to me that I would take the emotions I felt while watching the play and turn them into action.

 

I especially agree with the snippets below.  I recall the mosquito question.  Did you encounter the "can I get it through sweat?" question.  

 

But it wasn't just watching my loved ones waste away that was horrible; it was watching the treatment of the patients.  Everyone was so scared and no one knew anything, and that panic turned into theories about how you could get infected that today would sound preposterous (can a mosquito bite an AIDS patient, and then a healthy person and infect them?), and anyone suffering with it seemed to be put in a category that was so dehumanizing, just when they needed all the love and support they could get.

... ...

[T]here is always a sense of not having done enough, or not being able to.

... ...

I thank God for people like Larry Kramer and Bobbi Campbell and ACT UP and Roger Gail Lyon and Tony Kushner and Elizabeth Taylor and Elton John and all the loud mouths who wouldn't shut up, because where would be now without them?  "Thank you" doesn't seem adequate.

Imagine if Reagan mentioned "AIDS" publicly just a few years earlier; imagine how many may have been saved.  I know it was 'cause he was "dancing with the one who brung" him, but I've always wondered if he was aware of how much his former Hollywood colleagues were to be affected by AIDS.

  • Love 1
sugarbaker design

sugarbaker design

(edited)

When I saw the recent revival on Broadway I thought how could they bring this to tv/film?  Is it more effective listening to Bruce Niles telling us about his boyfriend's body being packed in a hefty bag or is it more effective watching it actually happen?  I really liked the stage play, it had a ferocity that was hard to ignore, I remember thinking Joe Mantello, who erupts volcanically, has to do this eight times a week, he's going to need some help.  I don't know if a TV movie can pack that intensity.  Of course the movie is flawed, that goes without saying, but that doesn't mean I didn't go through a box of Kleenex.  From the beginning it bothered me, why not include the lines from the poem by Auden that inspired the title? Howabout an opening title sequence with credits for actors and crew and production?  Nope, just the stark title of the movie.  There was a couple of things I enjoyed about the movie:  Mark Ruffalo's performance was perfectly paced, his Ned Weeks was simultaneously exasperating, lacerating, loving, warm, pushy, obnoxious and sad.  Two words:  Joe Mantello.  This is the performance of the movie.  I know Matt Bomer is going to get press for his physical transformation but Mantello's staggering, heartbreaking performance is the stuff for which awards are made.  There were things that didn't work:  the character of Dr Brookner was screaming out for a better actress than Julia Roberts.  Ellen Barkin in the Broadway production was ten times as galvanizing as Miss Roberts.  The movie is just way too long, it really needs some editing.  Is it worth seeing?  Absolutely, I admire Ryan Murphy's work here, but that isn't stopping me from imagining a version directed by a less heavy handed director.

Edited by sugarbaker design
Milburn Stone

Milburn Stone

(edited)

The HBO cast is mostly different, with Joe Mantello (one of the best actors of my theatergoing experience, who pretty much gave up acting for directing after Angels in America) demoted from the leading role to a secondary one.

 

I didn't see it on Broadway, but I think I might have liked the HBO movie better if Joe Mantello had played Ned instead of Ruffalo. Ruffalo at his most strident never seemed like so much of an assh*le that the GMHC board would have forced him out. I don't know whether that's because Ruffalo was afraid to stray too far from likability in his portrayal, but even when he was supposed to be aggravating I saw him more as simply a passionate advocate that GMHC would have been well aware it was lucky to have. Mantello, I can picture being more the thorn in their side that we were clearly meant to believe Ned Weeks was. Other than that I thought it was a good movie and it did a great job of historical education, but that central bit of miscasting--perhaps the distortion of character that's inevitable when you cast a movie star with something to lose in a role like that--took it down a notch.

Edited by Milburn Stone
Hanahope

Hanahope

Just watched this last night and thought it was amazing.  I was in highschool during the initial AIDS outbreak and all I remember was hearing about it being a 'gay disease' and my church pointing to it as God's punishment and so many people I knew smugly saying that it was deserved and would never affect them.    It makes me sick thinking about these "Christian" hypocrites who didn't have any compassion for what these people, these good people, were going through.  And like so many other things, ultimately finding out that the disease was not so limiting in its contact.  It also makes me so glad that our country is changing, that more and more states are allowing gay marriage and I'm able to see the change.  I thought the acting was wonderful and I hope the movie and the actors are well rewarded at the Emmys.

  • Love 1
midge

midge

I just watched it this afternoon... I thought it was devastating (in a good way).  It is all about the performances.  The only one I would have changed was Roberts, but she doesn't do anything for me most of the time (I did think the scene with the smug government guy was good).  I was in grade school/high school at the time of the breakout - I remember the outright terror people had.  Much of the movement forward in the crisis was due to those who were loud and screamed for people to do something.  I think the play/movie is a good way to honor that.   It was flawed, yes, but powerful. 

DollEyes

DollEyes

    Powerful doesn't even begin to describe The Normal Heart Like And the Band Played On and Angels In America before it, The Normal Heart tells the story of AIDS from another perspective. If AtBPO was a medical mystery and AIA dealt with issues of AIDS, religion and sexuality, then this film is about the beginnings of the disease. This film hit close to home for me because one of my relatives died of AIDS about 20 years ago, which made some scenes in the film especially painful but I watched anyway, out of respect to my late relative and everyone else who has died of it. The film was dated at times but since it's a period piece based on a play that was originally written back in 1985, it's understandable. Because The Normal Heart took place almost 30 years ago, the  difference between the way AIDS victims are treated then and now is staggering. This film is jam-packed with great performances. Mark Ruffalo knocked it out of the park. His Ned Weeks is a devoted and passionate advocate, but he's also a shrill and sanctimonious asshole who pissed off so many people, including the members of the group that he started, that he got kicked out of said group at the worst possible time. Joe Mantello is great as Mickey Marcus, but IMO the reason why he wasn't cast to play Ned is because he's not a movie star. Mark Ruffalo's not only an Oscar nominee, he's in The Avengers, one of the biggest action franchises of all time, plus he's one of the film's Co-Executive Producers, so if someone of his caliber can get more people to watch this story and learn from it, then so be it. That doesn't trivialize Mantello's performance by any means; that's just the way it is. Getting back to Ned, as infuriating as he is-and he is-when all is said and done, he performed a public service. Diplomacy is important, but so are those who rant, rave and rage against the system because without them, AIDS victims would still be, literally, treated like garbage. Like I always say, "Sometimes, the best way to open peoples' eyes is by kicking their ass."

 

  Besides Ruffalo and Mantello, other acting standouts include Julia Roberts, Taylor Kitsch, Jim Parsons, Alfred Molina and last, but definitely not least, Matt Bomer.As Dr. Bruckner, Julia Roberts does her best work in years, especially in the scene when she read that smug douchebag from the National Institutes Of Health for filth for his/their deliberate, if not blatant indifference and incompetence in dealing with a plague that would eventually decimate much of the local gay community at the time, for starters.  Taylor Kitsch was superb. His Bruce Niles captured a deeply conflicted man who was true to himself but was afraid of how the world would see him. Bruce believed in the cause but not some of Ned's methods, hence his role in ousting Ned. If Kitsch's work in this is his way of atoning for John Carter and Battleship, then apology accepted.  Given my hatred of The Big Bang Theory in general and Sheldon in particular, Jim Parsons was a very pleasant surprise. Everytime I saw Tommy, he looked like he needed a hug. As annoying as Parsons is in TBBT, that's how great he is here. Parsons is perfect as Tommy, the quiet man who gradually came out of his shell because of his dedication to both the cause and to Ned-whom I think Tommy, at the very least, had a crush on. My theory about Tommy is that while he wanted a relationship (preferably with Ned), his fear about AIDS kept getting in the way. Tommy is such a sweetheart that he helped a woman who lost her best friend to AIDS find new meaning in her life and he paid tribute to all the friends he lost by keeping their rolodex cards instead of throwing them away. Tommy reminds me of the quote from Jeffrey, another film about AIDS: "Think of [it] as 'The Guest Who Won't Leave.' The one we all hate. But remember-it's still our party."  Another great performance is by Alfred Molina, who played ben, Ned's brother, who, in some ways, undergoes the most dramatic transformation of all. When Ben saw Ned and Felix getting married on Felix's deathbed, he seemed to finally see Ned as an equal for the first time.

 

  And then there's Matt Bomer. To call his performance incredible would be an understatement. As Felix, Bomer is breathtaking and heartbreaking, in every sense of those words. On the shallow side, when Ned said that he'd forgotten about his bathhouse fling with Felix because the room was "too dark," if I were him, that room would have had to have been pitch black for me to even consider forgetting getting with a dude that fine. Ruffalo and Bomer's love scenes gave new meaning to the term "Hulk smash." On a serious note,  Bomer's physical transformantion was devastating to watch. Seeing such a gorgeous man being reduced to a thin, lesion-covered shadow of his former self shows just how insidious AIDS is.  If Bomer doesn't already have a trophy case, then he had better build one, ASAP.  Kudos to all involved, on and offscreen.

  • Love 3
Milburn Stone

Milburn Stone

(edited)

Mark Ruffalo knocked it out of the park. His Ned Weeks is a devoted and passionate advocate, but he's also a shrill and sanctimonious asshole who pissed off so many people, including the members of the group that he started, that he got kicked out of said group at the worst possible time. 

 

I get that this is what happened in the film (it's the basic plot line, after all), but did you believe from Ruffalo's performance that this would happen? That was my problem with the film. Not once did he come across as "sanctimonious asshole" to me. Persistent, dogged, passionate, abrasive when necessary, but never an asshole you'd say your organization was better without than with. That was the intent, that was the actual history--but Ruffalo's performance didn't sell it, and so the GMHC's action (a rather important turning point in the film) felt unmotivated.

 

Now, if you want to say Ruffalo was good casting because it was important to get a mainstream movie star to play the part so the film would get made and a broad audience would watch it, that's another story. As far as the performance he delivered "knocking it out of the park," no, not for me.

Edited by Milburn Stone
  • Love 1
Irlandesa

Irlandesa

get that this is what happened in the film (it's the basic plot line, after all), but did you believe from Ruffalo's performance that this would happen?

 

 

As you said, it's the general plot line.  The performance could have been shriller, I guess.  In many of his interviews, Ruffalo was careful to point out that his interpretation of the material was that it was all out of love and the love did lead his performance.  I haven't seen other performances.  There is definitely room to play up the more "bad" aspects of Ned's personality compared to the more "palatable" aspects and still give an equally compelling, perhaps even moreso, performance. 

 

However, I didn't think Mark's approach undercut the writing or the denouement of the Gay Men's Health Crisis aspect of movie at all.  Some of the reasons they parted ways with Weeks were due to his personality.  But most of the reasons listed were directly related to specific actions he took on behalf of the GMHC.  His tendency for public outrage didn't seem to mesh with the rest of the board.  Bringing camera crews to the site without warning, regardless of the wishes of the closeted president, could definitely earn antipathy even if it wasn't done in anger but rather out of a true belief that he was doing the right thing.  That's where the arrogance comes in. Arrogance can be loud or quiet and I think Mark played both.

 

So personally, the performance absolutely did work for me and I believed the story because it rang true.  They started out with the same goal but as the GMHC started to evolve as an organization, the rifts in their approach, heck even their philosophies, led to a split.  Kramer went on to form Act Up where he was able to focus on his true passion of advocacy, or "fighting for the living." And Act Up eventually evolved too and TAG split off from it when their approach to tackling the search for the cure didn't completely align with Act Up any longer.

Rinaldo

Rinaldo

I get that this is what happened in the film (it's the basic plot line, after all), but did you believe from Ruffalo's performance that this would happen?

If I may answer a question addressed to someone else, my answer is "Yes, I did believe it." And I did see Joe Mantello play the role onstage (and I consider him one of the very greatest actors of my theatergoing lifetime, in this play and in Angels in America). He was marvelous. But so was Mark Ruffalo. Two varying routes to the same end, both honoring the same script. That's a great thing about theater, having one's experience enriched by very different yet equally valid embodiments of the same character.

Milburn Stone

Milburn Stone

(edited)

If I may answer a question addressed to someone else, my answer is "Yes, I did believe it." And I did see Joe Mantello play the role onstage (and I consider him one of the very greatest actors of my theatergoing lifetime, in this play and in Angels in America). He was marvelous. But so was Mark Ruffalo. Two varying routes to the same end, both honoring the same script. That's a great thing about theater, having one's experience enriched by very different yet equally valid embodiments of the same character.

 

I've greatly enjoyed Ruffalo in other parts for many years now, so I'll just chalk up the fact that I didn't believe him in this one as "one of those things."

 

Among things I felt the film did exceptionally well was its examination of the conflict within the gay community in response to the health crisis. As a not-gay but aware person, I knew early-on about the crisis in real life, and I knew from the perspective of someone outside the gay community how the majority population was mostly ignoring it. But I never knew the extent of the dissension within the gay community as to how to deal with the crisis--even to the point that there were those who rejected well-meaning and valid efforts by straights to stem the crisis as an attempt to force gays to behave within straight norms. As one faction pleaded with the majority culture to help, another faction tragically rejected straights' efforts to help because of suspicion that the help was "for the wrong reasons." We'll never know how many lives would have been saved if the urgency to practice safe-sex had been more widely appreciated within the gay community earlier.

 

One real-life event not in the film which I believe changed the direction of the mainstream culture on AIDS--a shift which in turn allowed the gay community to view the straight community's efforts to help with less suspicion--was the death of Rock Hudson.

Edited by Milburn Stone
  • Love 2
Rinaldo

Rinaldo

The play premiered in the year Hudson died. My memory (inevitably personal, and I wasn't living in NYC) of the effect of Hudson's death on the gay community itself is that it was (while of course sympathetic to his personal suffering) largely angry about its media effect. He mattered, while all the rest of us hadn't? He "put a face on the disease" (and this was said of a few others after him too)? We didn't have faces? It was an angry and divisive time, and even well-intentioned straight people often seemed to not "get it."

  • Love 3
Milburn Stone

Milburn Stone

The play premiered in the year Hudson died. My memory (inevitably personal, and I wasn't living in NYC) of the effect of Hudson's death on the gay community itself is that it was (while of course sympathetic to his personal suffering) largely angry about its media effect. He mattered, while all the rest of us hadn't? He "put a face on the disease" (and this was said of a few others after him too)? We didn't have faces? It was an angry and divisive time, and even well-intentioned straight people often seemed to not "get it."

 

The angry reaction totally makes sense to me.

 

If there is one theme that can be derived from the contrast between the time of the play and now, it is that the tension between the gay and straight communities has melted away to a degree that would have seemed miraculous in 1984. Gone? No. But gone almost to the vanishing point? I'd say so. Gay activism deserves a good share of the credit. Events have validated Larry Kramer's position.

DollEyes

DollEyes

 

I get that this happened in the film (it's the basic plot line, after all), but did you believe from Ruffalo's performance that this would happen? That was my problem with the film. Not once did he come across as "sanctimonious asshole" to me. Persistent, dogged, passionate, abrasive when necessary, but never an asshole you'd say your organization was better without than with. That was the intent, that was the history, but Ruffalo's performance didn't sell it, and so the GMHC's action (a rather important turning point in the film) felt unmotivated.

Now, if you want to say Ruffalo was good casting because it was important to get a mainstream movie star to play the part so the film would get made and a broad audience would watch it, that's another story. As far as the performance "knocking it out of the park," no, not for me.

 

    I respectfully disagree. Since I'm the poster who praised Ruffalo's performance, I do believe it, otherwise I wouldn't have praised it in the first place. His Ned came off as a sanctimonious asshole to me several times, such as the scene that Irlandesa mentioned, when he almost outed Bruce-his best friend-on television, exposed Bruce's lover Albert's illness to the rest of the board without Bruce's permission, saying that he started to believe that his brother Ben and the rest of the straight world were "the enemy" because they wouldn't do things his way  and even accusing Felix of "weakness" when he admitted that he was a divorced father whose ex-wife wouldn't let him see their son. In fairness, re Ben and Bruce, Ned was extremely frustrated about why so many of his friends were dying and the rest of the world, including his own brother, didn't seem to care and Bruce did tell Ned and Felix about Albert about Albert's illness without Albert's permission, but in that case, IMO the difference was that Bruce was confiding in his friends, not exploiting Albert's pain just to make a point.   Because of Larry Kramer's writing and Ruffalo's acting, those scenes showed that while Ned's passion offended his enemies, it could also alienate those he loves.

 

  True, Ruffalo's a mainstream movie star, but like I said before, he's also an Oscar-nominated actor. He has done great work in the past and I thought he was great here, so I guest we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Milburn Stone

Milburn Stone

(edited)

His Ned came off as a sanctimonious asshole to me several times, such as the scene that Irlandesa mentioned, when he almost outed Bruce-his best friend-on television, exposed Bruce's lover Albert's illness to the rest of the board without Bruce's permission, saying that he started to believe that his brother Ben and the rest of the straight world were "the enemy" because they wouldn't do things his way  and even accusing Felix of "weakness" when he admitted that he was a divorced father whose ex-wife wouldn't let him see their son….Because of Larry Kramer's writing and Ruffalo's acting, those scenes showed that while Ned's passion offended his enemies, it could also alienate those he loves.

 

My post was intended to get you to give some support for your position, which you've now done magnificently, so…mission accomplished.

 

Thanks. I can't disagree with any of your evidence. (Even if, for me, the mere fact of Ruffalo's being a movie star automatically conferred "hero" status on the character that didn't quite jibe with the character's actions.)

Edited by Milburn Stone
LADreamr

LADreamr

Fastiller, sorry for the late reply.  I think I do recall the sweat concerns, and definitely kissing and even hugging questions.  Some of it was understandable, as we just didn't know anything and the spread of it was horrifying.  I didn't mind ignorance so much, it was the outright meanness.

 

 

Imagine if Reagan mentioned "AIDS" publicly just a few years earlier; imagine how many may have been saved.  I know it was 'cause he was "dancing with the one who brung" him, but I've always wondered if he was aware of how much his former Hollywood colleagues were to be affected by AIDS.

 

Yeah, I think it was just that it didn't affect him personally and he had nothing to gain from jumping into it until he absolutely had to - which was after Rock Hudson came out and Elizabeth Taylor became so vocal.  I don't even think it was about caring about Hudson, it was more that the public outcry by then was too loud to ignore.  And God bless Rock Hudson for having the courage.  He could easily have died quietly somewhere and had his people announce it as cancer.  I think the shocking change in his appearance made a huge difference in how the public started to engage in the fight.  

  • Love 2
fastiller

fastiller

He (Rock Hudson) "put a face on the disease" (and this was said of a few others after him too)? We didn't have faces? It was an angry and divisive time, and even well-intentioned straight people often seemed to not "get it."

Ryan White, too, even though it was a few years later.  Hudson was Hollywood.  White brought the disease to "the heartland".

 

 

Fastiller, sorry for the late reply.  I think I do recall the sweat concerns, and definitely kissing and even hugging questions.  Some of it was understandable, as we just didn't know anything and the spread of it was horrifying.  I didn't mind ignorance so much, it was the outright meanness.

 

No need to apologize.  I found that much of the meanness was tied up with the ignorance.  People who were inclined to be closed-minded were inclined to ignorance (obviously) and to meanness.

  • Love 2
LADreamr

LADreamr

I agree, but I just mean, in those early days, when even scientists weren't sure of anything, there were at least people who just didn't want to catch it and weren't sure what that meant they could or couldn't do.  But yes, the meanness was ugly and overwhelming.  Ryan White was very close to my heart.  I can't believe he's been gone this long.  His mother was amazing, and still does so much.

  • Love 1
Irlandesa

Irlandesa

Thanks. I can't disagree with any of your evidence. (Even if, for me, the mere fact of Ruffalo's being a movie star automatically conferred "hero" status on the character that didn't quite jibe with the character's actions.)

 

I find that interesting because I didn't get that vibe at all. He was the protagonist, for sure, but I think there were a lot of heroes in this show. 

 

But then again, it depends on how you define "movie star."  I think the only person in this movie whose "movie star" status interfered a bit with the story, even though I thought she was good in her role, was Julia Roberts.  Love her or hate her, she is a movie star.  I've always just seen Mark Ruffalo as a guy who just happens to make his career in movies.   I know he plays the Hulk in super hero movies but for the most part, he's supporting (as he mostly is in those movies) or leading in indies.  I think the percentage of people who could recognize him off the bat is much much lower than Julia Roberts. Hell, I'd bet more people could recognize/identify Jim Parsons than could recognize Ruffalo.  Now, I'm sure Ruffalo's casting may have helped get this film made but it wasn't on the level of Matt Damon or Michael Douglas for Behind the Candelabra.  

 

 

Ryan White, too, even though it was a few years later.

 

 

Ryan White and Elizabeth Glaser were likely the duo that started to scare America.  They were seen as "blameless" in that they weren't doing drugs or weren't homosexuals.  It's sad but it's not uncommon for people to start caring once they see themselves in the victims.  And then Magicc Johnson did a lot in basically dispelling the safety net of that asshole in the White House who was interrogating Ned about men not being able to get it from women.

Wax Lion

Wax Lion

I thought this was overall a powerful reminder of the indifference and fear the AIDS crisis inspired. There were people who suggested that maybe if this disease was only affecting undesirable people, we should just let it take its course. Those people did not lose their respectability for saying such horrible things.

 

As for Ruffalo's performance, I liked it though I did think he came off as too likable for a character that has a lot in common with Larry Kramer. (I saw a community theatre performance of The Normal Heart and when I saw an interview with Kramer I was amazed at how much more grating the real person was. He's really challenging to watch.) I thought his ostracization  made sense in the movie, but it was less about how abrasive he was but because he was so impulsive and terrible at stopping to think about how his actions might hurt his friends and colleagues. It depended more on Ned's actions (the story) explaining why he was kicked out of GMHC but Ned's actions made sense under Ruffalo's performance.

  • Love 1
Helena Dax

Helena Dax

I watched this movie two weekends ago and that night I couldn't sleep. I mean it literally. I was hunted by the shower scene and every time I closed my eyes, all I could see was Felix's anguish. I had to start watching White Collar -a show I had never watched, I barely knew Bomer then- just to fight against that memory, 

 

It was great and  necessary and it deserves every prize in the world.

DXD526

DXD526

I agree that when Ned was kicked out of the group he founded, it didn't really ring true in the film. Knowing what happened IRL, I was waiting for Ned's character to be as extreme as Larry Kramer was, triggering his removal, and it's not there. Maybe they didn't want to risk making Ned too unlikable. 

 

There are other things the film gets very right, however, and it was powerful, and could be a bit difficult to watch, for those of us who went through that period of hysteria in the 80s. The big scene with Ned and his brother, the "I'm furious with you" scene, was one of the most affecting statements I've seen on that time. So many people were so complacent while so many people were dying, and Ned's frustration with that complacency was compounded by the fact that his own brother was guilty of it. So many back then, as Ned did, held their tongues around family members, not wanting to cause a scene, and moreover, afraid of what might come out of their mouths once they started talking. And, just as he suspected, when Ned starts, it all comes tumbling out - the anger, the disappointment - culminating in throwing down the ultimatum: step up as my brother, accept and support me, or I don't want any relationship with you. You could see Ned try to hold back, that he didn't want to get into this, but just couldn't any longer. He knew his brother wasn't at the point of acceptance and that he risked losing him, but he just couldn't make excuses for him, in his own mind, any longer. 

 

A great scene, and Ruffalo played it really well. I also thought Julia Roberts gave a nice, low-key performance. As others have said, the Emmys this is likely to garner are well-deserved.

  • Love 1
Milburn Stone

Milburn Stone

I agree that when Ned was kicked out of the group he founded, it didn't really ring true in the film. Knowing what happened IRL, I was waiting for Ned's character to be as extreme as Larry Kramer was, triggering his removal, and it's not there. Maybe they didn't want to risk making Ned too unlikable.

 

DXD, I think maybe you're the first person to echo this, so I'm glad to know I'm not totally alone in my reaction. And I think your diagnosis of the cause is accurate. It's kind of a fundamental flaw when a story pulls its punches to such an extent that a major plot point becomes not credible. 

 

However, I also agree with you that the movie got a whole lot right.

  • Love 1
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...