Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Reflecting on the ACT-UP Oral History Project
As we begin class today, please tell the rest of us about the video clips you viewed and the transcript you read for today from the ACT-UP Oral History Project. Which ones did you view or read? What impression did these interviews and transcripts give you about ACT-UP’s history and its role in AIDS activism? What questions did it raise for you? What kind of information or knowledge about this history do these interviews make accessible to us? What did you learn about doing oral history from these sources?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSome of the interviews I watched were Larry Kramer, Richard Deagle, and Sandy Katz. The interview I read was Sandy Katz. This one first caught my eye because it is the guy that they interviewed alongside a goat. This was something that was not in any of the other interviews so I decided to watch that one, along with the others, and read the transcript. These videos gave the impression that these people associated with ACT UP were not afraid to speak out, speak their minds, and deal with the consequences. These videos made it clear that these people were not afraid to ensure that the public heard their voices and their cries about the inequality the people felt and the things that needed to be changed.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure any questions came up while I was watching and reading this. I wish this was something that I could relate to more because Sandy was discussing yelling at Reagen who was president while much of the stuff around AIDS was first happening. These interviews add another side and perspective on the entire AIDS fight. Most of the time, the side that is presented are those who were living with AIDS, who felt oppressed and were speaking out against this injustice but in a non-violent, not in your face way. ACT UP clearly seems to be an organization that is not afraid to get into people's faces and force them to face the issues of this situation.
I learned that doing an oral history is never as clear and clean as you would hope. Much of the interview was not related to ACT UP but was simply the interviewer trying to relate to Sandy. This actually made the interview better because it showed the normal, daily life of these people. I wish the site had actual papers talking about these interviews because this would give a little bit more information about how to go about doing the paper after we have actually done the interview.
The interview I watched and read was of Emily Nahmanson. Her story was very interesting, the video portion was a story about a rally she was at, apparently dressed up as a clown, and they were trying to stop something across the street but couldn't get there so they took a cab around the block. She was immediately arrested, but it sounded like they enjoyed what they did anyways. Her transcript of the interview was interesting also. It gave us insight on her life during that time; she was a college student in New York, and she recalled how she became active in ACT-UP. It gave me a better understanding of what it was like to be part of the AIDS-activism, especially being a young-adult.
ReplyDeleteReading interviews as opposed to narratives gives us a more genuine, less fabricated account of their personal experiences with ACT-UP. They even write down the interviewee's stutters and re-wordings of sentences, which makes the reader feel almost as if they are not reading but rather listening to the interview.
I learned, I guess, how to write the transcript from the recording, and how important it is to capture each moment on paper. I like how the visual part was only a small section of the actual interview. That gave more meaning to her story and the section that was portrayed in video.
These interviews made me nervous for the interviews that we are going to be doing, because I’m worried that I won’t think well on my feet or ask good questions. But they also made me excited, because I’m interested to have the experience of talking to someone first hand, rather than reading a transcript or account. I think it will be much more interesting to be able to see the person we are talking to and interact with them. The interviews reinforced this excitement for me because I liked that I could see the facial expressions and gestures of the people being interviewed. Also, seeing the person’s face and being able to actually see what they look like makes the interview more real than just reading it off paper.
ReplyDeleteI watched five different interviews from the ACT UP Oral History Project. The five people interviewed were Rick Loftus, Maria Maggenti, Emily Nahmanson, Lei Chou, and Steve Quester. I was surprised when I watched them because the majority of them were very humorous; the interviewees were laughing and smiling, which is the opposite of what I would normally expect from someone with AIDS. I was also astounded at the different actions they took to spread the word about ACT UP and their message. Stories they told about dressing up as clowns and draping banners from the balcony of Saks Fifth Avenue and even from the Statue of Liberty made me reconsider my preconceptions of ACT UP. I had expected that they mainly participated in picket lines and lobbied people in government. I had no idea their actions were so creative and outlandish. It made me better understand their passion for the group and the message.
ReplyDeleteI found Steve Quester’s interview the most interesting, so I read much of that transcript. He had some very fun stories, like taking action in front of three different presidents in a row – Reagan, Bush, and Clinton. When reading this, I was kind of confused about why no one in the group seemed to be concerned about getting arrested. It seems contrary to the norm. From this and other interviews, I learned that oral histories don’t have to be boring and simply lists of fact after fact; they can tell an interesting story in a fun way. Even a single anecdote can stand in for the whole story and show the passion of the interviewee. This has gotten me more excited to begin interviewing for our own oral history project.
The interviews that I watched consisted of a variety of different viewpoints on ACT-UP as a movement. The first one I watched was a woman who was a protester. She discussed her involvement in protesting against a republican convention, taking the name “Lesbians for Bush.” The second interview that I watched was a lawyer for ACT-UP, discussing how people treated the protesters on trial. The third interview that I watched was a Chinese man, Lei Choi, who discussed how he traveled to schools to discuss safe sex. The fourth was a filmmaker who worked to keep medical studies for AIDS going.
ReplyDeleteFrom these interviews, I realized how different these people were. Their perspectives were also very different. The protester gave insight into the “radical” aspect of the organization, while the lawyer had a different perspective on how these “radicals” were treated. I read the transcript for Lei Choi. Compared to the rest of the interview, the clip they chose was very different. The majority of the interview consisted of Choi’s involvement in ACT-UP working in homeless projects. However, they chose a clip from the end of the interview where he discusses his later work. The difference between the transcript and the video clip is that in the transcript, I wasn’t able to pinpoint his expressions and feelings. The clip had a variety of facial expressions and inflections in his voice that made the piece funny. However, it was difficult to get that from the transcript.
From watching and reading these interviews, I realized how important it is to dig deeper, asking lots of follow-up questions. I also learned that taking notes on the interview could be helpful to capture how the interviewee feels about what he is saying.
I viewed the interview of Robert Vazquez-Pacheco. I also looked over his full interview transcript. Paheco was speaking about his experience with the ACT UP organization and how he had originally became involved with the organization. He first became involved by taking notes for ACT UP on the blackboard during their meetings. He explained how he was one of the few members that was a minority and he even went as far as comparing the racial imbalance as "A fly in a glass of milk." These kind of interviews bring us first hand accounts that are free of bias and tampering (or at least as much as possible). Viewing an interview instead of reading it also brings out more subtleties, such as voice fluctuation and other mannerisms that enhance what the person is saying.
ReplyDeleteAmong the interviews I watched were the ones with Maria Maggenti and Spree. Spree's caught my eye because he looked like a very eccentric guy so I figured his interview would be interesting. He told stories of people who had called the National AIDS Hotline asking whether or not they could have contracted AIDS from certain activities. Although these tales were funny to hear, they also demonstrated the widespread paranoia and confusion as to how AIDS was transmitted.
ReplyDeleteThe transcript of his interview and the interview with Maria Maggenti demonstrated just how radical ACT UP was. They described some of the major events they had sneaked into and protested at and the consequences of their actions. Oral histories in general provide firsthand accounts that are free of interpretation from third parties. Specifically, the live interviews presented more of a complete picture since the interviewee's mannerisms, facial expressions, and voice inflection were present. Reading the transcripts was helpful for our project with PAH because I learned that it is important to often probe deeper into a particular subject if it seems of interest.