viewer reactions

zThe Gift

.A Documentary by Louise Hogarth

http://www.positivenation.co.uk/issue89/regulars/artspage/arts_special.htm

This review was posted by the Nation.

The following is an exchange between the reviewer and one of the subjects reviewed.

Sir;
My name is James Bloor, and I am the 'screwed-up HIV-positive guy' who is mentioned in your recently reviewed preview of the documentary, 'The Gift' - slated to appear at your London Lesbian and Gay Film Festival.

Your reviewer, a Mr. Gibson, is entitled to take exception to a film that attempts to examine the thorny issues of safe sex so-called bug-chasing, and the rising rates of sero-conversion, especially among gay youth. I'm the first to admit that the film is disturbing to many of us gay men. Still; I find it ironic that a writer for your publication would be so blithe and dismissive - and actually insensitive - in the following regard...

In his review; Mr. Gibson proclaims me a screwed up HIV-positive guy, due to the following quote from me, in the film: "I don't want anyone to get close to me anymore. I don't want them to have to bury me. This will just have to do until it's over." These were comments I made, in attempting to explain why I have remained single and unattached for nine years now. And I am not going to apologize for viewing my infection as a burden - because that's how I experience it.

He then goes on to conclude that sincere, heart-felt comments like mine only serve to
'alientate' the audience this film is attempting to 'target'. Meanwhile, Mr. Gibson seems intent on alienating potential viewer's from seeing a film that (and these are just my own grandiose hopes, here) save their lives, and/or result in more relevant safe-sex education.

Is it possible that Mr. Gibson does not understand the nature of the documentary? Documentaries, in their purest form, are meant to be objective, and 'target' no one. I would not have participated in Director Louise Hogarth's project, if I had detected even a hint of bias or 'point of view'.

Also, and for your reader's edification; this 'screwed up HIV-positive guy' has been a contributing writer at Frontier's Newsmagazine for over 10 years. Frontier's is a national gay glossy here in the States, and it's readership, primarily in California, is three times wider than your own circulation. I have been writing on the topic of AIDS for 15 years, much of it, gratis, and my work has been translated into nearly 20 languages around the world. In my youth; I was a member of ACT UP, and have been arrested and jailed for fighting for the rights of persons with HIV and AIDS.

Still think I'm 'screwed-up', Mr. Gibson?

Thanks in advance for your consideration...
James L. Bloor, Ft. Lauderdale, FL (954-630-0535)

Hi James,
Many thanks for this letter, which I presume is for publication.
As editor I can only say I was delighted with both L's review and your reaction - because they both illustrate what an emotive and personal issue dealing with sex and relationships is if you have HIV. I have also found that people adopt diametrically opposite solutions to the problem. I can't speak for Laurence but as an openly HIV+ writer he has dealt with the same issue. So have I! As it happens I'm on a panel discussing the Film when it's shown in London this evening and may (anonymously if desired) use your letter as an example...

Best wishes
Gus

Dear Gus;
Thank you for a quick and gratifying response to my letter. You are quite
welcome to publish it, or reference it during your panel discussion. No need for anonymity - I'm about as 'out there' as you can get :). [One small note: I noticed, after the fact, that I omitted the intended word 'might', before the sent phrase, 'save their lives, or...' - makes more sense that way.

As I write; I'm not clear if you've seen the documentary or not yet; so tailoring my comments naturally feels a bit awkward... I'm happy to confess to you; that Laurence's review invoked not so much a reaction from my own ego; as it did an intense curiosity.

I'll explain....
From my perspective, the film contains, yes - sterling examples of 'villainy', but also some incredibly noble and poignant insights from 'experts' more illuminous than I. For Laurence to pan the documentary; based on comments from me ( a minor player ) suggests that the film truly hit a raw nerve with him? I only have a 'rough-cut' version of the film, at home here. But I have screened it for nearly 20 of my gay pals. Their reactions were, literally, all over the map. They are chagrined, appalled, gratified, and angry. They embrace this film – or they reject it. There is no middling ground. Most startling? The HIV-negative men among my group expressed relief; that 'someone' was hearing/voicing their own dilemma's, their own conflicts. And however 'healthy' we might perceive ourselves to be; isn't that the group that we want to spare the uncertainty and compromised health that we know?

At it's U.S. premier in Miami, I will, like you, participate in a panel discussion. We should compare notes; don't you think? It'll be grand....

Cheers,
Jim Bloor

Dear James,
As a young, 24 year old gay HIV+ man, I don't view my infection as a burden (in fact, quite the opposite: I have developed a very healthy state of mind, where the infection that almost killed me when I was first diagnosed some 4 years ago has now actually enhanced my mental state tremendously).

I felt isolated and frustrated by the documentary. In your letter you say that the objective of the documentary was to tackle "the rising rates of sero-conversion, especially among gay youth." Surely, then, there must be a "target" audience - young, gay youth, like myself. The documentay did, as you say, hit a raw nerve. Maybe because I do not feel associated with either of the groups depicted (the frustrated, depressed and generally negative positive men; or the men who attend the 'sero-conversion' parties). Or maybe because the film was a little shortsighted: Do you not think that the film could have
explored the reasons why people feel the need to catch HIV, rather than just highlighting
the "dreadful" effects an HIV diagnosis can have?

Best,
Laurence

My dearest Laurence;
Thank you so much for taking the time to write and respond. I do appreciate it, so much.
I've always said that a writer should be prepared to stand by his words, and you explained your point of view brilliantly :) You know; when I was your age, I think I detested, most of all; those gay men in their forties, who seemed to 'know it all'. I viewed them as ageing queens, and I vowed to never be like them. They were boorish.

But alas; I am 47 yrs. old now. It is a troublesome age; our dicks fail us, and our creativity becomes dusty :) We send contributions' in the mail, instead of hoisting protest signs in a pouring rain. Damn, damn, damn, gravity! :) I was like you, once. And I have enjoyed those spare benefits of AIDS. I wouldn't have a writing career, without AIDS. I wouldn't have enjoyed the feelings of solidarity and brotherhood (perhaps?) without AIDS.

After the initial fear and terror of my diagnosis in 1986? (pre-AZT?) I experienced a surge of creativity and optimism. I garnered a couple of HIV-negative lovers as a result of my ebuliency; but they both left, over time. HIV was larger than them - and larger than me and my optimism.

Minus a cure, Laurence; this disease is gonna kill me, and it's gonna kill you. At the horrible risk of sounding patronizing; I don't fault you a bit for your youthful optimism and valiant attempts to vanquish this illness. In truth; it might break my heart if you didn't embrace the values and philosphies you describe. I honestly feel you are entitled to as much :)
But, sweets; consider that 'negativity' for you is despicable reality for those of us dubbed long-term survivors? My T-cells are fine, but I've (since the film) experienced a triple coronary bypass. I have chronic bronchitis.

A friend of mine had his asshole carved up and scorched by radiation in an effort to rid him of rectal cancer, due to his HIV. If he dies next week? His family will be relieved to attribute his death to cancer, rather than the stigmatizing 'HIV'. Another pal of mine is on the verge of diabetes - due to his AIDS diagnosis. In the American vernacular; 'Dude; we're dying here - in spite of your best wishes!' I've been on the bandwagon for so long - fighting, writing for the respect and dignity that we who are HIV+ deserve.... But all of that changed when I learned that young gay men - terribly noble lads, such as you - were risking their lives. I pray that medical advances will keep up with the pace of our needs; you and I.
That would be wonderful....

Truth is; you will likely out-survive me by many years, Laurence. And that is how it should be. That's not 'negative' it's just the path my intellect proscribes. As such, I'd be a horror and a cheat if I didn't implore you to keep an open eye toward our situation, and this prediciment we share.

In closing; I applaud you for expressing your sense of feeling 'isolated' due to the documentary. How much I wish; that I could remove those feelings from you. Seems terribly unfair to me; that a bright lad, such as you, should be so conflicted. But this is the spectre, the reality; of AIDS. Truth is; if you had it to do over; you would not wish this disease upon yourself – or anyone else. Whatever benefit you derive from your diagnosis - you would not wish it upon others. AIDS is a disease that's terribly easy to justify and mollify - but it's hard to sleep with. As a sign-off, I must beg your forgiveness; by way of informing you that I have bcc'd this note to you, to your editor, and several other's who seem to find this topic fascinating.... Thanks, Laurence....
Thank you again, for a noble discourse,

Regards,
Jim Bloor

FOOTNOTE
I forwarded the review to a pal of mine in NYC , and this is the letter he wrote to PosNation. (And I didn't even solicit him to write it; he did it spontaneously!) :)

Very bizarre write-up by your critic of a film which addresses a tragic social trend within the gay population. Apparently unable to absorb or evaluate complexities, he seems more concerned that gay people aren't shown in their prettiest light. Perhaps he should be relegated to coverage of light comedies or restaurant reviews. The rest of us will be re-living the 80s as we return to the hospices, funeral homes and cemeteries.

Ross MacLean
New York