And the Band Played On is a historical drama (based on a true story) which premiered in 1993.
The topic of this drama is the early history of the HIV virus and the AIDS epidemic. The timeline is 1976-1992.
Here is some basic information about this drama:
** Director: Roger Spottiswoode
** Writer: Arnold Schulman
** Based on the book And the Band Played On: Politics, People, and the AIDS Epidemic by Randy Shilts (which was published in 1987)
** Language: mostly English, on occasion French
** Subtitles: English
** Run time: 141 minutes
The cast includes the following:
** Matthew Modine as Dr Don Francis (born 1942)
** Alan Alda as Dr Robert Gallo (born 1937)
** Ian McKellan as Bill Kraus (1947-1986)
** Glenne Headly (1955-2017) as Dr Mary Guinan (born 1939)
** Richard Masur as Dr William Darrow
** Saul Rubinek as Dr James Curran
** Lily Tomlin as Dr Selma Dritz (1917-2008)
** Jeffrey Nordling as Gaëtan Dugas (1953-1984)
** Charles Martin Smith as Dr Harold Jaffe
** Patrick Bauchau as Dr Luc Montagnier (1932-2022)
** Nathalie Baye as Dr Françoise Barré-Sinoussi (born 1947)
** Phil Collins as Eddie Papasano – the owner of a bath house in San Francisco
** Richard Gere as the Choreographer
** Steve Martin as the brother of a man who is killed by an AIDS-related disease
[The famous actor Richard Gere portrays a famous choreographer who has AIDS. In the drama, he is not identified by name.
This character is probably based on Michael Bennett (1943-1987), the choreographer of the musical A Chorus Line (1975) and Dream Girls (1981)
The famous actor Steve Martin portrays the brother of a man who has been killed by an AIDS-related disease, but his family refuses to admit this fact because of the stigma attached to the disease. In the drama, neither the dead patient nor his brother is identified by name.]
Since this drama is based on a true story, the basic facts are part of the public record. They are not a secret. This is why I feel free to mention some of them here.
While this drama is based on a true story, it is not a documentary film. It is a dramatized version of events. Not everything happened exactly as shown here.
Some details may have been added, altered or excluded for dramatic reasons or practical purposes. But the basic story is true.
As stated above, this drama covers the early history of the HIV virus and the AIDS epidemic. A mysterious disease appears around 1980 and begins to take its toll.
At first, the number of cases is low, but later the number of cases is rising and the death rate is high: at least 50 percent, often around 70 percent. Most people who contract this disease do not live long.
In the beginning, doctors cannot do anything to save their patients. Doctors do not even know the origin of this disease or how it is being transmitted from person to person.
At first, the mysterious disease is known as the Gay Cancer, because it seems that all victims of this disease are gay men.
Later, it becomes clear that this disease can hit any person; not only gay men, but any man, as well as women.
In the beginning, the disease does not have a name that is generally accepted. After a while, it is discovered that the origin is a virus, known as HIV, which can cause a disease, known as AIDS.
In this drama, we see how different groups and institutions respond to the threat from an unknown disease:
** The medical establishment in the US and in France: the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in the US and the Louis Pasteur Institute in France
** The gay community in San Francisco
** The US government which is headed by President Ronald Reagan (1981-1989)
What about the title: And the Band Played On. What is the meaning of this?
The title is a reference to the ocean liner Titanic which sank in 1912. According to the legend, the band continued to play, while the ocean liner was sinking.
The band played on, as if nothing bad had happened. The members of the band pretended that the situation was normal and that there was no need to be concerned.
When we are talking about the response of the US government headed by President Reagan, it is in fact more appropriate to talk about the lack of response.
When the AIDS epidemic began, the Reagan administration pretended the situation was normal. The administration refused to study the issue and to take any action to deal with the problem.
With regard to the AIDS epidemic, the Reagan administration seemed to take the same position as the band on the Titanic had taken while the ship was sinking.
The band played on. The Reagan administration continued as usual. Apparently, there was no need to be concerned.
The title of the book and the movie is a reference to the lack of response by the Reagan administration.
For a long time, President Reagan carefully avoided to say the word AIDS in public. On 17 September 1985, Reagan said the word AIDS in public for the first time. This was long after the epidemic had begun.
Some observers think they know why the Reagan administration took this position on the issue:
At first, it seemed that this disease only hit gay men. If gay men were getting sick and were dying, there was no need to be concerned. This was - according to some observers - God’s punishment.
Gay men were being punished for their sins. They deserved to get sick. They deserved to die. Why should we do anything to stop this from happening?
But after a while, this position could no longer be upheld. The Reagan administration finally began to take action on this issue. But the speed was very slow. And the amount of money which was available to deal with the issue was limited.
Since this drama is based on a book, it is obvious to ask: how closely does the movie follow the book?
Since the book has more than 600 pages, it is obvious that many details which are mentioned in the book are not mentioned in the movie. It was impossible to include every detail mentioned in the book.
As far as I know, the movie covers all the basic points of the book.
Randy Shilts, who died in 1994, lived long enough to watch the movie, which premiered in 1993. When he saw the movie, he said it included a few details which were not found in the book.
As far as I know, there are no contradictions between the book and the movie. There are no cases, where the book says one thing and the movie says the opposite.
The 1987 book was for many years regarded as the definitive account of the AIDS epidemic, and the 1993 movie covers all the basic points of the book.
After the publication of the book and the release of the movie, it became clear that both the book and the movie have several flaws.
In the movie, Dr Don Francis is the main hero, while Dr Robert Gallo is the main villain, when the focus is on the medical establishment.
According to scientists, who have watched the movie, Dr Don Francis played an important role in the research, but it is not fair to present him as the main hero of the medical establishment.
According to scientists, who have watched the movie, Dr Robert Gallo can be criticized for his role in the research, but it is not fair to present him as the main villain of the medical establishment.
It seems the movie-makers made both characters more extreme: they made Dr Don Francis better than he was in the real world and they made Dr Robert Gallo worse than he was in the real world.
Perhaps the most obvious flaw in the book and in the movie is the presentation of the character Gaëtan Dugas, who became known as person who brought AIDS to America, even though this description is completely unfair.
Dugas was a French-Canadian flight attendant who was interviewed by doctors from the Centers of Disease who were trying to identify the virus which can cause the disease AIDS. They wanted to find out how it was transmitted from person to person.
Dugas was able to offer information about more than 70 persons with whom he had had sex in recent months.
Based on his information, the CDC created a chart which had Dugas in the center, while all the persons with whom he had had sex were listed around him.
Doctors of the CDC assumed he was the person who had brought AIDS to California and to the USA. But they could not prove this assumption.
The chart was an internal document created in 1982. In 1984, it reached the public. On the chart, Dugas was identified as patient O. The letter O was used, because he was the only person listed on the chart who was not from California. He was from the outside.
When reporters saw this chart, they misread the letter
O as the number zero. This was how the term “patient zero” was created. It was
based on a misreading of the chart.
One of the reporters who saw this chart was Randy Shilts who was working on his book at the time. His book editor Michael Denneny (1943-2023) was worried that a book with a lot of medical information might be boring.
He said they had to do something to make the story more interesting. He encouraged Shilts to give Dugas a prominent place in the account.
Apparently, Shilts did not really want to do this, but when Denneny insisted, Shilts accepted his suggestion.
This is why Dugas has a prominent place in the book. This is why Dugas has a prominent place in the movie.
Dugas became a well-known name in North America. He was described as the monster who had brought AIDS to California and to the USA.
His family in Canada suffered, as he was vilified by the American media, even though the members of his family were not responsible for what Dugas might have done.
A study published in 2016, showed that Dugas had been blamed for no reason. He was not the first person to bring AIDS into the USA. The assumption some doctors at the CDC had made back in 1982 was unfounded.
Why had the name Dugas been connected with a chart which illustrated how the disease could spread?
Why did this happen?
Because he had been helpful. Because he had offered more information than most people who had been interviewed about their previous partners.
What do reviewers say about this drama?
Here are some results:
78 percent = IMDb
88 percent = Rotten Tomatoes (the audience)
100 percent = Rotten Tomatoes (the critics)
On Amazon there are at the moment more than 1,700 ratings of this product, including more than 600 with reviews.
The average rating is 4.8 stars, which corresponds to a rating of 96 percent.
The ratings are very good, as you can see. I understand the numerous positive reviews and I agree with some of them. But I cannot go all the way to the top.
As explained above, there are some flaws. This drama is good but not great.
I have to remove one star because of these flaws. I think this product deserves a rating of four stars (80 percent).
PS. In 1993, when this historical drama was released, the Nobel committee in Sweden had not offered the Nobel Prize in medicine to any scientist who was working the field of HIV and AIDS.
The Nobel committee waited for several years, perhaps because there had been a scientific dispute between the US and France regarding the discovery of the HIV virus.
The leader of the American team was Dr Robert Gallo, while the leader of the French team was Dr Luc Montagnier.
Both claimed to be the first to identify the HIV virus. The dispute was formally ended in 1987, when the French prime minister Jacques Chirac and the US president Ronald Reagan had a meeting.
At that meeting it was decided that both countries should share the honour of making the discovery. But even after this formal conclusion of the dispute, the Nobel committee still decided to wait and see.
Finally, in 2008, a decision was made. In that year, the Nobel Prize in medicine was awarded to three scientists:
50 percent of the prize was awarded to a German scholar for research which was not related to HIV or AIDS
50 percent of the prize was awarded to two French scientists who had worked together in the field of HIV and AIDS:
** Dr Luc Montagnier
** Dr Françoise Barré-Sinoussi
When the official announcement was made, it was clear that the Nobel committee did not regard the work of Dr Robert Gallo as important enough for him to be included in the award.
According to some observers, this decision was fair. According to other observers, this decision was not fair. But the Nobel committee in Sweden had made its choice.
According to the Nobel committee, the French scholars had made the important scientific discovery, while the American scholar had not.
REFERENCES
# 1. Film and video
The Times of Harvey Milk
(1984)
Before Stonewall
(1984)
After Stonewall
(1999)
Milk
A historical drama
(2008)
Stonewall Uprising
(2010)
How to Survive a Plague
(2012)
Stonewall
A historical drama
(2015)
Killing Patient Zero
(2019)
# 2. Books
Science Fictions: A Scientific Mystery, a Massive Cover-Up, and the Dark Legacy of Robert Gallo
By John Crewdson
(2002 = hardcover)
(2003 = paperback)
How to Survive a Plague
By David France
(2016)
Patient Zero and the Making of the AIDS Epidemic
By Richard A. McKay
(2017)
# 3. Items available online
Boyce Rensberger
“Scientists say HBO movie distorts history of fight against AIDS,”
Washington Post
02 October 1993
Ashley Welch
“Patient Zero wrongfully blamed for AIDS epidemic, report finds,”
CBS News
26 October 2016
Jacqueline Howard
“The truth about patient zero and HIV’s origin,”
CNN Health
29 October 2016
Peter Knegt
“Killing Patient Zero: How a Quebec flight attendant was falsely accused of bringing AIDS to America,”
CBC Arts - Queeries
25 July 2019
Last updated 07 June 2022
Howard Markel
“How the discovery of HIV led to a transatlantic research war,”
PBS Newshour
24 March 2020
Scott W. Stern
“Don’t look for patient zeros,”
The New Republic
08 April 2020
Grant Hill
“How the myth of patient zero was made,”
Whyy (the pulse)
17 February 2023
*****
And the Band Played On:
Politics, People, and the AIDS Epidemic
by Randy Shilts
(1987)
*****
The American journalist
Randy Shilts
(1951-1994)
*****
The American doctor
Robert Gallo
(born 1937)
*****
The French doctor
Luc Montagnier
(1932-2022)
In 2008, he was awarded the
Nobel Prize in medicine
for his work in the field of
HIV and AIDS
*****
The French doctor
Françoise Barré-Sinoussi
(born 1947)
In 2008, she was awarded the
Nobel Prize in medicine
for her work in the field of
HIV and AIDS
*****
No comments:
Post a Comment