peterson@vaxwrk.DEC (11/16/85)
I found it had a lot to say in a very short time. It had to talk about AIDS, gay people, gay/straight family relationships, gay/gay relationships, and all in two hours. And it said a lot of pretty good things. I just didn't like the way they were said. I'm tossing my two bits in to critique the drama, not the content. The acting was flat and the script seemed so much like a brochure. I half suspected enlarged AIDS brochures were being held up off camera for the actors to read. At other times the actors seemed very unrehearsed. An explanation might be the script editting, the amount of new emotional and informational ground that had to be covered, and perhaps a very short production schedule. Does anyone know if they *had* a short schedule? Because of this the drama did not hit home as hard as it might have for me. I feel I was affected because of previous (sympathatic) education on the disease, the people with it, and from going thru The Revelation with my own folks recently. I wonder how the movie emotionally affected less informed viewers (particularly my parents). Remember, the question parents ask coming-out children now is "What about AIDS"? I'd better reemphasis that despite it coming off like an ARMY training film it was still good and needed. I guess I'm fortunate I couldn't stay awake for the 11:30 massacre. \bob usenet: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-vaxwrk!peterson /\ arpa: peterson%vaxwrk.DEC@decwrl.ARPA