MovieChat Forums > The Normal Heart (2014) Discussion > Great film, but one scene surprised me, ...

Great film, but one scene surprised me, and not in a good way...SPOILER!

posted 11 years ago by Gabe1972
30 replies | jump to latest

During the meeting where Dr. Emma was talking to the young men at Ned's house, she told them that she didn't really know what caused the disease and for sure how it was transmitted. She then added, "Doesn't common sense tell you you should cool it?" What bothered me was the extreme reaction. People started yelling and acting as if their life was over if they stopped having sex. Tommy even said, "That doesn't leave much to look forward to."

Really? So the most important thing in your life is having sex? The most important thing in your relationship with your partner is sex? And even if you don't have a partner, sex is still your reason for living? I could understand a reaction of disappointment and some anger in the fact that she is saying this without knowing for sure how it is being transmitted, but the way that they acted was, to put it bluntly, shocking. In the end, though, is your need and desire for sex so rampant that you are not going to listen to advice that may keep you from contracting this heinous disease because the thought that it may be sexually transmitted may not be 100% fact? (when I say "you", I am referring to the people in the film)

Now this didn't change my opinion of gay people in any way, shape or form, as I know that most people, whether gay or straight, like/love sex, but they don't think of it as their life blood like this group of people did. It did change my opinion of this particular group of people a little, though.

I do understand that their reaction was stronger than would be from straight people because they have been fighting for a right to be who they are and be with who they want to for a long time, and in a way someone was suggesting that they need to stop an aspect of that struggle, but I still think the reaction was too extreme.

Did anyone else find their reaction to the suggestion extreme?

The sad thing is, if many of them had heeded the suggestion, they would still be here. Great sex is not worth dying over.

The plural of mouse is mice. The plural of goose is geese. Why is the plural of moose not meese?

[–] truetexian 11 years ago

It's important to keep in mind that their response to Dr. Emma's suggestion that "they should cool it" is just one man's (the writer's) recollection of their reaction. Also, their reaction today (in hindsight) carries far more weight of judgement knowing what we know.
"I do understand that their reaction was stronger than would be......" is also an important context in which to interpret their responses. Just look at what a controversy banning large sugary sodas caused recently. And the nuts who are currently walking around out in public spaces and into shopping and eating establishments here in Texas with their rifles strapped across their shoulders. Americans in general don't cotton to having their freedoms taken from them.

[–] cinles 11 years ago

They didn't "cool it" and neither did millions of other people. Trying to control other people's biological needs is difficult, as is evidenced by what happened & is still happening.

[–] Gabe1972 11 years ago

"Needs" would be the key word here. Food, water, sleep, shelter, air...those are needs. Desire would be a more appropriate word for sex. The reaction from them was like she was saying cool it to the first things I mentioned.

This is only in response to the post from cinles, not truetexian.

The plural of mouse is mice. The plural of goose is geese. Why is the plural of moose not meese?

[–] Gabe1972 11 years ago

I agree that this is all from the point of view of one person, and perhaps he made the reaction stronger than it really was to create a sense of tension and seriousness.

I totally agree about the gun nuts "exercising their rights." What they don't seem to realize, as most stupid people wouldn't, is that by doing what they are doing, they will create such a stir that it's entirely possible a federal law will be created to ban such behavior. So by exercising their rights they are only going to hurt themselves.

What kind of a person needs an AK-47 in McDonald's anyway? Do they think the Hamburgler is going to try to rob them? LOL. Nutballs. Absolute nutballs. And this opinion is coming from a gun owner. I've never felt the need to carry my .223 around in public. I am also all for universal background checks and I think the NRA is an evil, racist organization. Again, this is coming from a gun owner.

But back to the original topic, I can completely understand a knee jerk reaction, it's just that I didn't expect it to be that strong. But like I said, it was probably exaggerated for effect. It's too bad that a lot of the people that the characters were based on died of AIDS long ago, as it would have been interesting to get their reactions to the film. And you are absolutely correct that knowing what we know now makes some of the things that happened back them seem very odd, to say the least. Very good point.

I think I'm going to have a nice, cold 42oz Pepsi now. Heh heh.

The plural of mouse is mice. The plural of goose is geese. Why is the plural of moose not meese?

[–] truetexian 11 years ago

I'm definitely enjoying and appreciating both your point-of-view and your wit...btw, I just finished a much more sensible sized 32oz. Pepsi myself.

[–] houndentenornyc 10 years ago

Also know that Kramer was already well known in the gay community for being critical of the promiscuity, as in his 1978 novel *beep* People saw this message as (though they didn't use this term at the time) "slut-shaming".

Also, I came out in the late 80s. Believe me, a LOT of us were very careful about what we did sexually. But by then a lot of people were already infected.

[–] Gabe1972 10 years ago

That adds a little more to understanding why they reacted the way they did. They were already on guard, specifically to him.

The plural of mouse is mice. The plural of goose is geese. Why is the plural of moose not meese?

[–] LovesConfusingJoy 11 years ago

I agree and I thought it was even stranger that Tommy said this because later on in the film Ned tells him he needs to put himself out there more

[–] DivaJ75 10 years ago

Tommy wasn't out there emotionally. That doesn't mean he wasn't having lots of sex.

[–] doelcm 11 years ago

When you challenge someone's lifestyle, they tend to react negatively. By lifestyle, I'm referring to promiscuity.

As an analogy, look at the reaction to AGW (the climate change debate) today. The way we live could be leading to mass extinctions, causing more severe weather, making the sea levels rise, etc. We could lose many of our coastal cities, and the loss of life will be catastrophic. It's only common sense that we should alter the way we live.

But many people accuse the majority of scientists who are warning us that this will happen of having ulterior motives. They say "why should I change the way I live when the Chinese are polluting even more?" They ridicule people who actually do try to change their lifestyles. They say "but back in the 70s you were warning of a new ice age, so how can we trust what you say now?" Some are very strident and self-destructive in their opposition to any change in their lifestyle.

-----
I love Mister Bungee--yes indeedy (here's your ziti)!

[–] Gabe1972 11 years ago

Very good point. I hadn't really looked at it in that way, and in seeing it this way, it actually may not have been as shocking a reaction as I had initially thought. I appreciate the response. That's what's great about films. There are many ways to see things and many people may see things differently from the way you do.

Most great films have arguable points, not just a concrete, narrow way of being seen.

The plural of mouse is mice. The plural of goose is geese. Why is the plural of moose not meese?

[–] DanaShelbyChancey 10 years ago

You are absolutely right. Everything you say is true.

The only way to explain, is the movie takes place in the early 80's when it was so new, so scary, and little was known.

Julia Roberts character, a clinician, made the connection, and told them to cool it; it was later figured out about "safer sex".

The 1970's were so much about everybody doing exactly what they want to do, at the very moment they wanted to do it. This became a lifestyle in itself for many people.

Being suddenly told "don't" in the 1980's was a shock, and people responded to it with anger, underlaid with fear.

[–] tsim0227 10 years ago

Hmmmm...this has been a very interesting discussion to track. I can't help but laugh a little--it's a bit of a shock to my system to be talking about "back in the olden days" when I'm referring to the late 70's/early 80's. (Don't get the rocking chair ready for me YET, OK?) That being said, I'm a straight female who was born in 1960 and came of age, so to speak, right about this time. It's really hard to describe to people who weren't "there", but sexuality in GENERAL was totally lit up like you couldn't even imagine today. Because of the horrors of the AIDs epidemic, it's crushing impact on homosexual men, and the resulting press, the gay community caught the brunt of it personally and in the media, but, I assure you, there were extremely risky behaviors pretty much everywhere, across both genders, and a vibe of trendiness around all of it that made me wince well before I was out of my 20s. Be assured lots of women back then were participating--we just didn't (excuse me) "THEY" just didn't necessarily brag about it too overtly due to other societal biases at the time. Any man who thinks a surprising % of women weren't a part of that whole scene is truly mistaken. What that era did in a lot of ways, for a lot of people, at the time it was current, was to really split off the idea of romantic love from sex--probably not unlike some sort of weird group hypnosis. This part of that time really had nothing to do with sexual preferences. (Sad, really--but that's the best way I can describe it.) Once the suffering of gay men who did get this horrific virus was actually publicized, it made a lot of people rethink a lot of things. I guess I said all that to say this: Sexuality, as an idea, let alone a specific lifestyle, is truly powerful, whether you're gay, straight, male, female, or any combination thereof. I learned a lot of hard lessons back then, and dodged a lot of bullets, but the reality is so many people (gay OR straight) who somehow made it through without being infected were simply just plain lucky. If I could go back in time, even if AIDs had never been a blip on the radar, I'd have made different choices that weren't driven by a concern for my physical health. In so many ways, too many of us were like lemmings off a cliff, our perceptions blurred by bright, flashing disco balls and a distorted idea of sex that had nothing to do with true intimacy. (I found the energy of "54" particularly accurate.) I choose to believe the lessons we learned had at least a little bit to do with people being able to initiate conversations like this as respectfully as you did here. Hopefully my rambling made a little sense out of a time in my life that was nonsensical at best.

[–] Gabe1972 10 years ago

VERY insightful. The more I'm reading people's responses the more I'm understanding why a reaction like that is believable. I was growing up around this time, but still too young to have experienced what the time was really like. My "coming of age" was more in the late 80s and early 90s.

Doing things that aren't recommended is pretty much a "right of passage" in a way, and I surely dodged some bullets myself. As we get older and look back we realize how crazy we really were with some of the things we did.

And yes, your "rambling" actually makes perfect sense as in reality its something that most of us go through to one extent or another.

Thank you for your reply. Again, it was very informative and helps me to understand the time and the reactions of people. It's too bad that it had to happen at all.

The plural of mouse is mice. The plural of goose is geese. Why is the plural of moose not meese?

[–] cpoet 10 years ago

Thanks for writing all that, tsim--you did a good job describing the zeitgeist of the late 70's/early 80's--although I kind of think "you had to be there." I'm the same age as you, and apparently share some of the same emotional retrospect.

The only thing I would add is that part of this crazy time came about because reliable birth control was available for women for the very first time. Before birth control pills--when abortion literally involved coat hangers and unsanitary kitchen tables--getting pregnant meant getting kicked out of your high school, your church and all "polite society."

So there was a brief window between the terror of unwanted pregnancy and the death threat of AIDS. And it was a sexual free-for-all.

Then the first GRID reports seemed to indicate there was a terminal disease associated with sexuality, but. . . just for gay men?

And then finally they had to change the acronym. (Idiots.)

[–] tsim0227 10 years ago

So glad I finally noticed your post--for a minute there I felt like the only person in the room who "raised their hand", so to speak. Glad we both made it through, somehow avoided disaster, and learned some lessons...and you're absolutely right--the accessibility of birth control, so very new back then, really did crank up the volume...that window you highlighted (between fear of pregnancy and the splash-landing of AIDs) was, in hindsight, so very deadly to have been draped with such shiny ribbons...;o] T.

[–] houndentenornyc 10 years ago

According to activist Andy Humm (who was actually there for that meeting) what really happened is that everyone was horrified because what the doctor was telling them matched what was going on around them. The negative reaction came when they took this information to the public at large. Remember that this is the early 80s and the gay community is responding to the sudden emergency of the religious right and the rightward swing of the government under new president Ronald Reagan. There was a lot of fear and paranoia. You should check out And the Band Played on (film or book), How to Survive a Plague (documentary from last year which in many ways picks up where The Normal Heart leaves off) and the very good 1990 AIDS film Longtime Companion (where you can see different fictional characters respond to the news of the then-new disease). Kramer's screenplay tries to telescope a lot of reaction and events into a few scenes and in doing so distorts what happened somewhat. That's dramatic license and is common in such movies, but know that it's not a complete representation of what happened.

[–] Gabe1972 10 years ago

I saw "And the Band Played On" years ago, and last year it was on one of the movie channels. I recorded it on my DVR, then decided to upgrade to the Genie from DirecTV and lost everything that was on my DVR. I recorded it then lost it in the same week. I've been looking for it to come back on. I actually never heard of "How to Survive a Plague" and "Longtime Companion".

I definitely remember the religious craziness that was going on at the time. Reagan, the Moral Majority, Jimmy Swaggart, Jimmy Bakker, etc. There was definitely a lot of rebellion that was happening in the 80s and the old folks didn't like it.

I also understand about it coming from the point of view of one person. We can never have a truly unbiased picture when it is coming from one point of view, and a point of view that may be distorted about some things.

My father was a big fan of Reagan. He's still his hero. He left when I was five, but I still heard all about it when I would talk to him on the phone when I was a kid (I was born in 72). To this day, when I talk to him on the phone, I still have to hear his right wing, bigoted rants. Just last week I had to listen to him rant on about how Obama is a Muslim and ruining the country, how the new house he and his wife are moving into is on the same street where a gay couple lives and that they are bringing down the neighborhood. Of course he used a different term. When he goes into these rants I just tune out until he's done. There's no chance of him ever changing his mind so I don't even try. My mother, on the other hand, is the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of him, and thank God for that. Left wing all the way.

The plural of mouse is mice. The plural of goose is geese. Why is the plural of moose not meese?

[–] puirt-a-beul 10 years ago

You may have found it by now, Gabe, but Longtime Companion is a must-see, I reckon. Very early edge-of-mainstream AIDS movie, though with a mostly-straight cast (including one lead actor who kinda-sorta-outed himself, and then suddenly became all straight again when it looked like his career might take off). It has some lovely naturalistic performances, including Bruce Davison, who got an Oscar nomination and won a Golden Globe for his role.

How to Survive a Plague is really well made, but it's like a punch to the gut; I can't watch it without crying in several sequences. It tells the New York side of the story, and another brilliant doco, We Were Here, focuses on the San Francisco experience of the same time period as The Normal Heart, and my first watch of it made me sob. Both are very well worth seeing, but if you're a softie I'd strongly recommend choosing your moment to watch them.

We can never have a truly unbiased picture when it is coming from one point of view, and a point of view that may be distorted about some things.

The same thing could be said about Andy Humm's observations, of course. I'm not saying anyone is not telling the truth as they saw or remember it, but I think it's interesting to note that those who most strongly disagree with Kramer's recollections tend to be the ones who have reason to be the most defensive about what was done to him. Does that mean Kramer was right in all things? No, of course not, but he does have enormous integrity, despite people being irked by him, and I hate to see him readily dismissed because the others have agreement on their side. But it was a war, no question, and people's memories of war do generally differ.

You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

[–] Gabe1972 10 years ago

Now that's complete BS. Most gay relationships are much more solid than most heterosexual relationships. Why? My theory is that most gay men are NOT afraid to express their full feelings to their partner, but many men in hetero relationships think that makes them weak. Again, your statement is complete BS.

And most gay men are not dicks. Perhaps they are dicks to you, but then again, when people think the way they do about gay men, they are going to be dicks to them. If someone thought the relationship you were in was wrong and a complete "sin", you would be a dick to them, too.

Homophobes belong on the other boards, not this one. I don't tolerate homophobes. They tend to have low IQs.

The plural of mouse is mice. The plural of goose is geese. Why is the plural of moose not meese?

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Gabe1972 10 years ago

Okay, so the homophobe comment was wrong, and I apologize, but from my experience, and the people that I know, to say that "most other gay men are dicks and wouldn't have a relationship to save their lives" is wrong.

This is my opinion, and it may be biased by the fact that I am not gay and don't hang out with the gay crowd, but the couples that I have known that are gay are very strong in their relationship and certainly aren't dicks (my ex wife's brother is gay, as was one of her best friends, and the brother is still with the same person, going on twenty years now, though I'm not sure about the friend. Last I knew he was with his partner for at least five years, but this was a long time ago).

Around these people, I have met more gay men in lasting relationships than single, dicky, gay men. Women, too, but we aren't talking about them.

The plural of mouse is mice. The plural of goose is geese. Why is the plural of moose not meese?

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Gabe1972 10 years ago

Yes, in the US. As for Russia, you probably almost have to still be closeted, as their society is still full of people that would love nothing more than to string up a gay person. Can you imagine being gay in North Korea, or pretty much any Muslim country in the world? That's a death sentence.

Perhaps they are isolated cases, and as I said, I'm sure I am biased, but in a way I feel lucky that I have these people as an example. I'm sure you know your world better than I, but again, I'm glad that I know the people that I do as representative of the gay community. Had I met a slew of these dicky people, rather than the people I know, I may not think as highly of gay people as I do. LOL.

The plural of mouse is mice. The plural of goose is geese. Why is the plural of moose not meese?

[–] CaptainTerrific 10 years ago

I didn't find it all that extreme, no. That's probably because I know a lot of people for whom sex is of paramount importance.

We all have our "I wouldn't want to live if..." thresholds, and for some, it's sex.

[–] chiluvr1228 10 years ago

I don't know how many of you remember this but the religious fanatics thought this was a disease that God brought on the gays to punish them for their behavior.

[–] weaselprince71 10 years ago

"Remember"? There are still plenty of religious fanatics who believe that. Fewer, perhaps, but a vocal minority -- and with the additional charm, nowadays, of acting all persecuted when it is pointed out that their views are bat-s hit insane.

Take a quick scan of this message board, or any other website where the topic of homosexuality or HIV/AIDS arises in a broadly inclusive context like IMDb -- where gay-friendliness, while common enough, can't be automatically presumed.

The religious nuts come in several varieties, including paranoid (angry, despairing, "the existence of fags makes the whole universe seem icky"); beatific (serenely self-righteous, "go ahead and mock my religious psychosis, it only makes me holier"); chummy (deceptively "normal," "I'm just a friendly fellow-human who'd really like to save you from burning in hell"); and all shades in between.

But yeah, they're still around. And while some of them may stop short of claiming that the disease is literally God's curse on gay people, there are still plenty of individuals and groups making precisely that claim. The best that can be said is that they may have become somewhat more marginalized over the past three decades. But in that same time period, the internet came along to rescue all marginal viewpoints from oblivion -- whether they deserve such rescue or not.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]