Define Frenzy: The Political Camp of Zero Patience

“Define Frenzy” is a series essays published throughout Pride Month attempting to explore new queer readings or underseen queer films as a way to show the expansiveness of what queerness can be on screen. You can read previous essays here.
One of my favorite lines in many years in a movie is from BPM, when one member of Paris ACT UP, Sean (Nahuel Pérez Biscayart) suggests, for the gay pride march, a cheerleading group to amplify the chants. His frenemy, Thibault (Antoine Reinartz), shoots this down, decrying the “street theatre” aspect of it, and fellow moderator Max (Felix Maritaud) jokingly says that the act could evolve to include mimes. He says cheekily, “Poz mimes? A nightmare!” The outrageousness of the line and the film’s commitment to subversiveness can be translated to describe John Greyson’s revolutionary film Zero Patience. An AIDS musical comedy? A dream!
Released in 1993, less than a decade after Randy Shilts’ book And the Band Played On: Politics, People, and the AIDS Epidemic (1987), just over a decade after the New York Times first published reports of the rare cancer seen in 41 homosexuals in 1981, and less than a decade after the death of Gaëtan Dugas (March 30, 1984), Greyson’s film captures the impossibly elusive but profoundly important aesthetic sensibility that defined what B. Ruby Rich would go on to call New Queer Cinema. Though the film—which follows an immortal Sir Richard Francis Burton (John Robinson), now in Toronto working at a museum, as he curates and researches an exhibition trying to scrutinize “patient zero” (the loose meme name of the formerly accused first person to seroconvert the AIDS virus, Dugas) and the virus itself, as well as the mononymous Zero (Normand Fauteaux), who traces his steps throughout his life as a ghost—is both sarcastic and earnest, it embraces camp while finding nuance and complexity in the AIDS era and early 1990s aesthetics. Zero Patience confronts fictions we’re told when trying to process, organize and react to the kind of trauma the AIDS epidemic wrought.
The myth of Dugas as the source of AIDS in the United States, which grew in prominence in 1982, has since been debunked by a number of researchers, and Shilts has expressed contrition at exacerbating the myth in both his book and the subsequent HBO film adaptation, but Greyson had expressed fascination with the concept of a “patient zero,” and the targeting of one individual, as the very myth began to permeate a public discourse. The film that would come out of his research combined critiques of the medical industry, criticism of AIDS/HIV stigma, examination of how museums try to capture and boil down historical narratives and what those curated stories tell us about our own traumas. All with musical nods to Pet Shop Boys, Cole Porter, ABBA, Simon & Garfunkel, and others.
Part of Zero Patience’s hook is its musical numbers, where the quality of the music matters less in and of itself than it does in the context of a reflexive homage to musicals before it, be they Top Hat or Singin’ in the Rain. These films are postmodern reference points, enmeshed in queer culture, with which the audience and the film’s characters would be familiar. In a song critiquing the pharmaceutical industry’s greed in light of their slow, ethically questionable research methods and prohibitively expensive medication, members of ACT UP dance around in what amounts to a cardboard set. But its basic backdrop is partially the point, both as a wink to the studio musicals of Classical Hollywood, made with millions of dollars and lots of crane shots, and as an indication of the lack of funds many AIDS patients had. The musical numbers’ low-fi quality is embraced, not compensated for disingenuously, and the film is fully aware of those limitations. These sequences present a kind of drag; the film is almost like drag itself: exaggerated, outre, conscious of its artifice so that its aesthetics become a kind of politics. HIV literally takes the form of a drag queen.