•
Rating: A film that perhaps doesn't quite know what it wants to be. A strong, difficult theme, but not a new one. Director-screenwriter Campillo tackles it in an erratic manner, perhaps even a bit naive. He doesn't carefully select materials, nor does he choose a particular angle of view, putting everything into a pot that risks being off-putting.
A significant portion of the film is dedicated to the internal debates within the Act Up Paris group, which do not always engage the viewer's interest. Furthermore, the script's writing is not exactly flawless and oscillates widely in style: from street language of "screwing" and "taking it up the ass" to medical, anatomical jargon, with a profusion of terms incomprehensible to those unfamiliar with the subject.
From an informative standpoint, the film cannot be said to be particularly successful. The large-scale issues are by now rather predictable, while the more detailed ones are not explored in depth. The impression is more about arriving at a summary judgment, where the government, pharmaceutical companies, and the press are guilty, while HIV-positive individuals are victims, often innocent. This may be true, but one could have expected something more meaningful, a less banal interpretation. Like, say, what was done with Pride a few years ago.
And then the best and certainly the most powerful part of the film is linked to the vision, the representation of sex and death. When the dialogues, often unnecessary, finally fall silent, the power of the images hits like a punch in the gut. The embraces are truly intense, feverish, and convey that wild urge that drives the homosexual eroticism of the protagonists. Even more piercing is the gaze cast upon the illness, on the slow fading of life in a young man who has always made vitality his existential hallmark.
In these passages, the film explodes, pinning you to your seat with a lump in your throat. As for the rest, I believe the choice to follow the Act Up assemblies, with the many different issues and countless personal stories, did not benefit the specificity of the political discourse underpinning the film. It becomes somewhat a predictable and telegraphed battle, especially in 2017. When depicting certain civil struggles, one must be clear-headed enough not to fall into rhetorical speeches, particularly on issues now shared by the majority of people.
However, it seems Campillo wanted to maintain the political connotation, likely because he believes that the battle has not yet been won. If we think about contraception and the church, well then we might agree, but otherwise, it seems to me that things have improved. More clarity was needed in placing a diaphragm between the narrated events and the narrating directorial self, giving it a less emphatic and more oblique angle. Because cinema is first and foremost an aesthetic and epistemic affair, though it can also be a political crowbar.
6.5/10
Loading comments slowly
