120 battements par minute

Dear movie freaks, yesterday I went to film festival and I choose to watch this movie because of a reason: I already brainwash by Hollywood, so I want to watch other movie. This one is coming from France. As far as I know about French movies, they are sarcastic, well-presented, full of sex scenes, and shows the reality or humanity of marginalized people, and sometimes have clear ending. This movie 120 BPM has contributed to value up French movies this year and I do not so surprised if this movie was appreciated in Festival de Cannes. 120 BPM is a movie about the movement to prevent AIDS in the early 1980s in France, where at that time condoms were uncommon, despite of free-sex society. The scenes, cinematography, and main story about this movie is quite simple, but sharp in giving meaning, so that in each take, they have grammar of the scene and I could imagine they had shooting in many angles, as this movie could represent AIDS prevention in every angle of the story. Just like other French movies, this movie has sex scenes and hard language, so that if there are teenagers with you, I suggest you to explain more. The Director here also gives some real footages of the movement, so audience could have mental image of what was going on at that time, especially from the sad scenes, audience will remember the whole story as the critic for French government at that time (the President was Francois Mitterand, from French Socialist Party). Quite different from Brave Heart, this movie also wanted to say the AIDS prevention movement is for everyone, not for leftist people and I think this clear idea that had been founded the acting of all actors of this movie, deserve a high acclaim from many film festivals, including film festivals in Indonesia, my hometown. Thank you for 100% Manusia, an Indonesian NGO, who deliver this movie to our eyes.

A story with a particular historical moment in mind has been rendered timeless. A random first generation Gameboy generates a temporal whiplash, as the film's events are portrayed as contemporary catastrophes. Silence equates to death, and the team meeting in a college lecture hall has dwindling numbers, yet deafening shouts.

A prejudicial plague scorches France, bringing an already tight-knit community into a blood brotherhood. ACT UP is a guerrilla group full of eventual corpses. The HIV epidemic has threatened their love and survival. Pharmaceutical companies have cubical indifference as antidotes are sluggishly distributed by financial logistics.

As the non-violent vigilantes face just as many internal conflicts as press-generated woes, their operations grow in scale and creativity. Their weekly conferences have an intentional cadence complete with respectful snaps, hisses, and hand signals designed to facilitate the mutual understanding that has gone extinct beyond the university walls.

Sean is one of he founding members, and has some of the worst test results. He is the loudest in any given demonstration, and celebrates harder than all his peers. ACT UP is Sean's final lifeline, and his involvement resounds as a funeral dirge among a thunderous parade.

Campillo has delivered another dialogue driven barrage of human desperation. The sprinkling of establishing shots offer a reprieve from the claustrophobic disputes between the positives and the businessmen impartial to death. An important angle to an understated tragedy that shaped legislation in the most vital ways.

First premiered at Cannes where it won a Grand Prix, it's an impotant story of AIDS epidemic throughout the 90s in Paris and the actions taken by ACT UP organization founded to fight the epidemics.

This film does a great job at showing the activism at its thriving and not so thriving stages and introducing us to the stories of people until, at some point, a romance takes place while movie doesn't loose its quality and starts balancing two narratives.

Great casting, directing, sound choices. I will be happy to see two main actors in many new films waiting to see the light of day. They are proven talented and capable of taking demanding roles like ones showed here.

I noticed some unusual and smart ways of using sex scenes to deepen the background of the story, the story of one, also the one of the many.

Techo music was the music of the epidemic, 120 beats per minute, but at some point, heartbeat dismiss the techno and takes over, while the blood river flows though the city of Paris.

I feel like there have been many films with a similar premise to this, but this one really stands out in its execution. It manages to be both an intense, sensitive character study and a grander film about the scope of a very important political movement. The direction is really fantastic, and while I think the film is longer than it should be, the performances really make the whole thing worth it. They are fantastic.

This movie is not perfect, but its flaws are outshone by its facets. The most sparkling among those is Arnaud Valois, who is smoking hot as Nathan, one of the ACT UP campaigners who this film follows. Good acting, a warm heart and a realism that is hard to find in big idea movies are also highlights of this film. Yes, an awful lot of it takes place in meetings in a lecture theatre, but these scenes actually had my heart racing, so true were they to the reality of activist politics - trying to decide if you should speak up or let a point pass, understanding both sides of an argument but knowing that the purpose of a meeting is to make a choice, hating someone's ideology but trying to maintain a working relationship with them. In this way, the movie finds its relevance to today. If politics is to be taken back from careerists and corporations to instead deal with real problems such as climate change and growing income and wealth inequality, it will require everyday people to take their cue from 120 Battements Par Minute and turn up to meetings, argue points of order and collectively decide how to act.

The two main shortcomings of the film are its earnestness and its length. Even just cutting fifteen minutes from it could have made the film easier to take, and there is probably half an hour that could have gone. In some ways it's stuck trying to tell a Hollywood story at a European pace, and as a consequence it does drag at times.

I was prepared for the earnestness, as I had seen the previews, but there are still a few times when it felt more like instruction than entertainment. However, there are also moments of levity and it's worth giving up an extra half hour of your time to see a film that is as profound, important and relevant as this one.