In the early-1980s, when the first reported cases of HIV surfaced, the narrative was that it was only affecting white gay men in San Francisco and New York City. Sounds implausible today, but it was an easy way to “explain it away” during a time when homosexuality was still a very taboo topic. The reality, of course, was that the “gay cancer” was impacting men and women, straight and gay, in Black and other communities of color, as well.
During the 1980s, we were in the throws of Reaganomics, the effects of crack cocaine raging and radically changing our communities and the mass incarceration boom imprisoning Black men at an unprecedented rate. So it's within all of that that we also were dealing with and fighting for resources to combat the devastating effects of HIV.
It’s in this context that I find it deplorable that Lee Daniels’ is choosing to insert a, so far, problematic narrative into his remake of Terms of Endearment, which may feature Oprah Winfrey as the character “Emma.” I’m not going to spend this time listing my issues with Daniels’ approach to storytelling. Instead I’d like to draw attention to this specific quote from Daniels, as reported by Hollywood Reporter:
"I've got to tell stories that are important to me, and so many African-American women died," said Daniels. "I want to make Flap [played by Jeff Daniels in the 1983 film] gay and infect the Debra Winger character. And then we explore the '80s in a different way."
In this quote, alone, Daniels has made clear that he plans to exploit HIV’s impact on Black women, villainize Black gay men, and profit from already pervasive HIV stigma and homophobia at the expense of some of our most marginalized.
This is unacceptable. Far too many Black people, men and women, died in the early parts of the epidemic without access to treatment or narrative visibility. In the late-1990s and early-2000s we had to push against the idea of the “down low” as some new phenomenon preying on Black women. We’ve had to unite and fight back against funding mechanisms that have attempted to pit Black gay men and Black women as adversaries. The reality of this has always been far more nuanced.
In 2013, while being interviewed by Larry King, Daniels remarked that, while he was researching Precious at an HIV/AIDS community organization where he expected to encounter gay men, he instead encountered a room full of Black women. Daniels said to King “I thought I’d walked into the welfare office.” So, for Daniels to now say that stories about about Black women and HIV important to him, he certainly hasn’t always used language that has implied it. This isn’t the first time Daniels has been called to the carpet for his behavior in this regard. Journalist Myles E. Johnson wrote, “Daniels, with each project, shows that he is not willing to represent the communities he might be in close proximity to, but instead, exploit them.”
Ms. Winfrey, I urge you, please don’t let Lee Daniels do this. He’s already made an irresponsible and inconsiderate statement about his intent. We’ve already lost too much time fighting against ignorance. At this very moment, we're still trying to have laws that fly against current science modernized or repealed completely. These laws still criminalize people living with HIV - men and women - even in cases where there was no transmission or even intent to transmit. We have to have responsible storytelling.
In our current political climate, we don’t have time to waste on this. If Mr. Daniels wants to have a conversation about HIV and the Black community in the 1980s, fine, but not by exploiting the stories of people who gave their lives for the advances so many rely on today. Let’s be clear, the lives of Black folk are still at stake. We won’t watch this. We won’t support this.