| |
reviews
2006 Frameline XXX Follow-up Meth / Rock Bottom: Gay Men
and Meth
Blog entry by Michael Guillen, The Evening Class, July 04, 2006
"Recovery is a dominant narrative in our culture," Kent
Jones writes for the May/June 2006 issue of Film Comment (p. 34).
Though taken out of its Altmanesque context, I felt Jones' comment
appropriate to underscore the two Frameline documentary entries
on the methamphetamine epidemic among gay males—Todd Ahlberg's
Meth and Jay Corcoran's Rock Bottom: Gay Men and Meth.
Introducing Ahlberg's documentary, Frameline's Associate Director
Steve Jenkins asserted that, rather than duplicative programming,
the two documentaries engage in dialogue. I would agree. Though
both are testimonial docs, their combination provides a broader
sampling of voices and perspectives on this pressing health issue.
As novelist William Goyen might put it: "Had I a hundred mouths,
I would tell a hundred stories." Whatever spin you might put
on it, or whatever ethical stance you might take on the subject,
there's no question that when all is said and done hundreds of voices
will be necessary to envoice this season of fire. I'm respectful
of both directors' efforts to offer some of the first.
During her keynote address at Frameline's Persistent Vision Conference,
B. Ruby Rich noted that—if festivals can be used to reflect
the predominant themes of any given year—this year's theme
might be gay males and methamphetamine use; a sad and unfortunate
fact. It is still a divisive subject and, though some consensus
has been reached about the havoc meth use has wreaked among individuals
and—by extension—the community, what's do be done about
it is still very much a personal issue and up for debate. It reminds
me of the arguments around the closing of the bath houses during
the AIDS pandemic. When Jenkins noted that the screening of Meth
was co-presented by The Stonewall Project—which through its
website tweaker.org advocates harm reduction strategies—the
concept of harm reduction was applauded. This signals conflicted
attitudes within the community about how to best resolve or ameliorate
the volatile issues surrounding "tina" usage.
Of the two, I felt Rock Bottom more effectively chronicled the damage
of meth on individual lives. By interviewing individuals in the
hospital and individuals denying the gravity of their use shortly
before their deaths, Corcoran effectively demonstrated the true
danger of extended meth use. The talking heads in Meth, on the other
hand, seemed to be stationed before that juncture, concerned more
with whether or not to stop or ratchet down use. Whereas the self-denials
evident in Rock Bottom proceeded towards deteriorating health and
death, the self-denials in Meth came across as familiar and almost
comical. The audience laughed whenever a user claimed he had his
usage under control. This disturbed me and reminded me of an insight
I gained when I saw the Jean Cocteau retrospective in Paris. One
of the rooms of that exhibit was devoted to Cocteau's addiction
to opium. The thrust of that display was to emphasize Cocteau's
cycle of use and recovery, use and recovery, which pertains to how
many men grapple with their meth use, and why harm reduction is
in favor rather than complete withdrawal. A truth made all the more
disturbing by anecdotes of men who go to recovery groups only to
make sexual contacts and find new sources of speed.
Without question, from the benefit of distance, future historians
will look back at this time—much as I look back at the '70s
when it seemed there was a concerted effort to make gay males alcoholics—and
recognize that when cultures marginalize individuals and damage
their self-esteem, they create a breeding ground for substance abuse
of one form or another. Meth has revealed the obvious. Despite decades
of human rights and legislative advances, some wounds have yet to
be healed.
|
|
