Hi everyone, it has come to my attention that my blog post last week did not post due to a glitch. Additionally, the interviews I wanted you to write about are not accessible unless you have QuickTime, which is no longer downloadable with certain operating systems, like Mac. These are my reasons for changing the assignment! I’m keeping the “before class” deadline. Make this deadline. However, if you’re honoring Yom Kippur today, you have until midnight on Thursday to complete the assignment.
Assignment 5: Using your notes on the film, your memory, and notes from class discussion, write a 250-word response to How to Survive a Plague as a whole. What does it try to persuade you of? How does it do that? While your commentary is about the broader film as a rhetorical object, you must refer to specific details in the film in your response.
Remember, “Rhetoric” defines the “means of persuasion”—the ways that a form of media tries to convince you of something. Rhetoric might not always be obvious. There are many effects that How to Survive a Plague has on its viewers. Some of them are more obvious than others. I encourage you to think deeply about this and try to show your peers something unique and new about the film.
Randolph Harrison
I thought the film was trying to persuade me that the U.S. government did not do enough for the AIDS epidemic, and it was ultimately their fault for the deaths of thousands of people. I think the biggest way in which the film does this is through pathos. There were many scenes that related to pathos, such as the White House protest, where Act Up decided to throw bones and ashes of friends and family on the White House lawn. The directors wanted to emphasis this scene, so they added sad music to it as well. There were also many scenes that showed the conditions of people with AIDS. Many seemed malnourished and drained of energy. I believe the directors did that to evoke sympathy from the viewers, who will then make the connection to the U.S. governments involvement in causing this. The last choice that I noticed was how the directors also included parts of dialogue from politicians at the time, which showed their arrogance towards AIDS. President George Bush and Richard Nixon are featured in these scenes, which was done in order to spark anger from audiences.
Another way in which the film tries to convince me is through logos. The Act Up movement split up, with a movement branching out called TAG. This group tried to research and find a cure on their own by learning the sciences involved. They also sent the FDA instructions on how to improve the way drugs are approved. It was through this presentation of solid evidence that the viewer saw the government as inefficient and unaware of the consequences of their way of doing things.
How to survive a plague was a very moving documentary which showed a pivotal moment in American History. The movie demonstrates how people with HIV/Aids lived with no cure many years ago. Also the movie shows how even people without HIV/Aids helped there community have a voice on this issue. The movie tries to persuade people to keep watching to see how many lived during a plague and how a group of thousands changed the world and helped others to try to survive. The movie also persuades you to join any movement that helps your community or people that are in need of help, to be a voice in your community. The movie tries to persuade you these ideas by showing multiple marches and protest stands people had to fight back to there government and they let themselves get arrested to prove a point and to make people wanna fight back with them, it makes us angry as humans that they had to live with these conditions which makes us want to help as much as we can. As well as showing hospital scenes really hits an emotional spot for so many people. These people infected with HIV/Aids are weak and have lost so much weight and strength in there body and believe the government can do so much more because they have the ability to do so. “How to Survive a Plague” is a very emotional documentary and has made a huge impact on society by showing heartbreaking scenes and very powerful scenes to help grow the nation more together to make a change in society mainly about HIV/Aids.
Brittany A Cevallos
To me the film’s motive was to persuade the government that the aids epidemic was something much more than the “gay disease” and that they needed progress now. Through the beginning of ACT UP’s battle they’ve been viewed as an irritating group fighting for a cause that didn’t matter. When bodies started to drop they faced the officials head on demanding that drug testing for HIV and AIDS would not be treated like nasal spray, that hundred of thousands of lives should not have to wait 7 years for a possible working drug when the rest of the world has it ready for over the counter. With the introduction of AZT to the market after years of fighting for the legalization it demonstrated the reasoning behind their anger when it came to light that it wasn’t effective. Years of waiting and struggle and battle up against an apathetic nation just to continue to see the death toll rise. The documentary showed the despair HIV/AIDS victims faced first hand due to the discovery. Showing the side that was struggling is what showed that the epidemic was more than your typical cold and shouldn’t have been categorized as so when lives are on the line. That priority is needed regardless of the stigma because at the end of the day people are dying.
Ka Lye Chan
The documentary, How to Survive a Plague, elicits a series of various emotions through its storytelling of the AIDS epidemic in New York CIty that surfaced in the early 1980s. A main objective of the film was to educate people about the AIDS epidemic and to gain insight about it from people who were involved in ACT UP and bust some myths about AIDS. This film relies heavily on a person’s pathos and it successfully executes it with many components. A lot of anger and sadness is geared towards the government for not doing anything sooner, and the film successfully persuades the audience to think alike.The starting scene of the documentary is of an ill looking man who is laying on a hospital bed in a fetal position; he is, physically speaking, skin and bones. By intentionally starting the film off with that particular shot, the filmmakers knew exactly what they were doing; they were setting the mood and tone of the film and telling the audience that this documentary is weighty. We assume that he is battling with AIDS, so we assume that he is a representation of what someone who has AIDS looks like and we pity him because of his illness and because of how helpless he seems. Throughout the film, there would be an AIDS death clock that showed the amount of people who died because of AIDS related causes throughout the year. In doing so, the filmmakers are trying to provoke the audience since the rate of people dying of AIDS related causes are increasingly rapidly but the government is not doing much to slow down that clock, so to speak, so the audience feels this sense of rage that the people in the film has with the government. There are scenes of Robert Rafsky with his daughter, they are sweet and loving compared to the other scenes in the documentary. This gives dimensionality to Robert, this shows us that he had a life aside from ACT UP, this shows the impact that AIDS has on not just the person who has acquired it but also those around them. In the last scene of Robert with his daughter, it fades to a newspaper headline that tells us Robert is dead and then shows us his daughter at his funeral. The audience is able to feel more for this because no one likes to see someone losing their father to death, especially as a child, it’s a real tear jerker. The filmmakers of this documentary used pathos to persuade and educate us about the AIDS epidemic, the contents of it, and the people involved in the battle against AIDS.
Hasibul Bhuiyan
How To Survive a Plague was a documentary about the AIDS Epidemic and the efforts of aids activists to address and battle the epidemic. This involves protests against government officials and institutions, and creations of groups such as ACT UP. The documentary closely follows central figures in the AIDS movement such as Peter Staley and Bob Rafsky, and how they worked together with other activists to find treatment for HIV. The film expressed several emotions, from sadness and outrage to excitement and joy. I believe that the documentary was trying to convince its viewers that ordinary people can change the world if they work and fight together. They must learn to trust and love each other. They must stand up against their enemies and fight for one common goal. But they must be relentless and fierce. The documentary showed several examples of activists performing powerful and memorable actions to achieve their goal of getting treatment for HIV. Several key leaders such Peter Staley and Bob Rafsky gave powerful speeches at conferences, protests, and meetings which rallied support from millions of people. They used powerful words and phrases such as Silence=death to convince people to act up instead of doing nothing. There were strong protests in streets resulting in physical conflict with authorities. Peter Staley and other activists barricaded themselves in an office at Burroughs Wellcome in Research Triangle Park to protest the price of AZT. Staley and Rafsky would also confront officials in their buildings about speeding up efforts of federal approved AIDS drugs. Overall, by fighting constantly and sticking together, the AIDS movement and efforts by activists were successful, showing that the common people can accomplish anything, thus changing the lives of millions around the world.
The main narrative of “How to Survive a Plague” was the epidemic of HIV and AIDS, and the fight from the activist groups Act Up and Tag to get the proper medical care. The movie was created to highlight the fight for the proper medical care and the negligence from the federal government. By highlighting this narrative, by using footage of the individuals suffering, it created a sense of pathos; The movie was appealing to the viewers emotions by capturing how the illnesses effect on those who had it and didn’t have a cure. The movie would show scenes of people terribly ill, most of whom ended up dying. To add to this, the tone of the music added an effect to how the movie wanted people to feel. As I previously referenced the scenes in the hospital, the music had a sad tone, to key in on the horrific effects that not having a cure caused. In another scene, the music was more upbeat, portraying that something good had happened, and in this case it was the finding of a cure. Another sense of pathos was that the footage followed two key people, Bob Rafsky and Peter Staley. There was a personal narrative in capturing Rafsky’s fight, which ended up showcasing his final days as a family man. As a viewer, we were able to see the impact that having AIDS had on him as well as his family. This was shown through the various clips of him with his daughter, and at his funeral. What also enhanced the purpose was the statistics that would play whenever the year changed. This added a logical reason to get the proper medical care as there was a stretch from 1994-1996 that saw an increase of over 2 million deaths. Also in the movie, you had representatives talking about how that span of three years were the hardest, as ACTUP spilt, and TAG being formed. It led to a conflict between the groups into finding the right way to get a cure. In the end the movie appealed to both logos and pathos, as they came up with a logical reasoning into finding a cure, and when that was found, the music became more upbeat with survivors talking about their experiences.
The movie “How to Survive a Plague” takes us back to the late 80’s to tell the story of the AIDS epidemic in New York City. This movie follows the persistent effort of a group of activists fighting for action and change. One of the reasons this film is so impactful is because of its inclusion of the audience in the “behind the scenes” process. We are able to see the meetings and how they came up with protest ideas. This gives us a deeper understanding of what these people are fighting for. The film persuades us to the activist’s side and it does this by letting us into these intimate moments. We see these people at home with their families and with their friends, we get to know them on a certain level. There is an intimacy there that makes it difficult to want to oppose the main characters. The film also uses pathos to hook people in early. From the beginning of the film, death, inequality, and oppression are heavily discussed. The audience usually tend to focus and support that group, just because of sympathy. We as an audience, from the beginning, feel for the people fighting with AIDS and already hate the opposing sides, which are the government and the FDA. The film does a good job in keeping us on the same side throughout the film by continuing to focus on the deadly and truely sad effects of the government’s neglect.
The underlying message of the documentary is to take care of yourself and your brethren by having a hand in the best interests of others. As we saw, the AIDS epidemic managed to kill millions of people and tear away families and communities. Through logos we are delivered the facts like 6.2 million deaths in 1994. Through pathos we can relate to the families shown such as Robert as we see him fight up until his death. Leaving behind a distraught family that we feel sorry for. With these devices the audience is convinced of the cause and are aware of the effort that went into it. The epidemic had a starting point like all problems; however, unlike most injuries being aware of it was not enough. More than acknowledging it, there had to be a steady plan to counteract the affects of the disease. A small group at first which no one paid mind to;like weeds in the grass their pleads went unnoticed. Soon enough, the problem grew and expanded affecting the whole lawn or in our case society. After time we start to pay attention to the weeds after it’s disturbance was enough to shake you out of ignorant bliss. Then we begin to take action after our roots and establishments had been rattled, after the groups ACT UP and TAG made their presence painfully known. Although magnified through the documentary these are common
problems that occur everyday that we Ignore. The documentary serves as a reminder of what happens when one continuously pretends to not notice the problems around us. We grow dull to helping out our fellow man and inevitably it’ll come back to haunt the whole of humankind.
“How to Survive a Plague” depicted the American government and the medical community as negligent in regards to addressing the outbreak of the AIDS epidemic and finding a cure for it. The film conveys this agenda through a number of ways. One way would be the use cinematographic elements such as the use of powerful footages that evoke feelings of anger, fear, and frustration amongst the audience. An example of this would be the footage of Jesse James in Congress where he said “They can speak as long as they don’t offend anybody else I suppose”. This statement was made in response to the various ACT UP protests happening across the country demanding for the government for support and an effective cure to stop AIDS. Jesse James’ comment is used to highlight the U.S government’s neglect, inaction, and dismissal of ACT UP’s plea for help as death tolls climbed. Another footage, or rather collection of footages, that was used to make the audience sympathize with ACT UP’s frustration and anger would be the ones that showed the conditions of the patients afflicted with AIDS in the hospitals. The intent behind this would be to point fingers at the U.S government and telling them “Hey! You see all these people dying a slow and miserable death? You’re responsible for this”.
From another perspective, I thought that the film wasn’t necessarily just another rhetorical object. For a group that was heavily stigmatized, ostracized, continually dismissed, and neglected, the victories of the ACT UP movement served as a signal that the LGBTQ community isn’t at all powerless. By banding together, their collective voices will get the attention they need. In other words, the film to me also was kind of a flag that empowered the community to stand and fight against the social pretenses and injustices towards them.
Jacob Kapustin
“How to Survive a Plague” was an incredibly powerful documentary that truly showed the significance of the Aids epidemic in the world. The rhetorical goal of the film was to educate its viewers of how millions of people were dying in America every day, and how they fought the government for much needed action. The film was very successful in striking the reader because of its structure. The film connected with the reader due to the connection it built between the viewer and the activists shown. The film followed many activists such as Peter Slater and Bob Rafsky not only during the movement but also at their separate life. They also created relationships with many of the activists just to show them getting lifted, deceased, from their hospital beds. It would really let the reader feel a drop, of what the parents, the partners, the friends, and the loved ones of the infected had to experience. Another rhetorical strategy the film used was showing statistics and science behind what they were fighting for. Throughout the documentary, there would be a startling statistic of how many had died from aids that year, and every year that passed, the number would get higher. This created a very sharp affect on the reader, because it showed that the hundreds of people shown in this film were just a portion of those affected in the world. One can say that this rhetorical strategy can be described as logos, using logic and reasoning to portray a message to the reader.
“How to Survive a Plague” is most likely one of the most moving documentaries I have ever watched. In order for had been as moving as it was, it had to incorporate the essential rhetorical devices of ethos, logos and pathos. Pathos was incorporated in “How to Survive a Plague” by showing certain emotional scenes such as when a man was in his hospital bed extremely ill, and then was no longer in the bed. That certain scene demonstrated how threatening the disease was and how quickly people lost their lives due to it. In addition to this, the scenes that were shown in which people were getting dragged and carried out of protests by police demonstrated the dedication and emotional attachment those who believed in ACT Up had to the cause. Ethos was established by presenting many leaders who were directly tied to the ACT UP movement, and by also getting first hand accounts from actual AIDS patients. Some of the leaders directly involved in ACT UP were queer AIDS patients themselves. Their passion for the cause that was seen in the protest scenes and when they gave speeches. In these speeches, they were able to present facts and give direct orders to government officials in order to further their cause. By showing the rising death tolls during different scenes throughout the movie, the documentary was also able to present facts, which enacted logos as a rhetorical device. Viewers were able to understand how dangerous AIDS really was, and the damage the government was doing by not handling the crisis properly.