Review & Rant:
The Outing of Matt Shepard;
The Laramie Project

March 12, 2002
by Ruby Lips
This past Saturday night, The Laramie Project was presented on HBO.  Years after the vile hate-murder, this is the first 'dramatic portrayal,' much anticipated, of what happened.  To say that it was strange probably plays into the intentions of the producers.  The modern ideal of performance-art appears to be to be perverse and controversial.  Anything is fair game in the competition for fame and awards, and the exploitation of the sordid destruction of the promising life of Matthew Shepard is no different.

To be sure, the actors portraying the project researchers. in this story within a story, emanated a deep and politically correct reverence for the memory of Matt.  And yet, from the very beginning, one has the sense of, "what the hell is going on here?, What is the agenda? Why does this presentation seem so weird?"  The premise was that the very ordinary people of Laramie were being straightforwardly interviewed about their emotional involvement before and during the trials of the perpetrators.  One of the first was shown being asked if she minded the tape recorder that was put on her table.  Very candid and realistic, except that, 'hang on..., what about the TV camera we are seeing this through? And why are all the very ordinary people being interviewed able to speak so clearly without sighs and pauses and stuttering and lapses; and why do they sound, almost intentionally, as if they are acting rehearsed lines?'  It was because they, in fact, were actors engaged in the artistry of 'acting.'  Hmm, weird; why not just really tape the real people?  Maybe because that would just qualify for a 'documentary' award rather than the desired performer's awards; I don't know.

As the story unfolded, it turns out that most of the people of Laramie are not narrow minded hate-mongers but rather perfectly ordinary kind and decent folks who, although they never gave a thought to Queer affirmation before, responded with near saintly activist revulsion at what had happened.  Fair enough; enough time has past, now, to move beyond the immediate anger and look into the meaning of Matt's murder and see the good that emerged as a result.  That is lovely and ever so politically relevant and correct.

So, WHY THE HELL did they have to reveal that Matt was HIV positive!?  I had never heard this fact before; nor had anyone I know heard about it ever being mentioned in all that has been written and revealed previously.  Presumably it was common knowledge among inner cognoscenti; but all media seemed to have, up till now, had the unusual decency to decide that it was not relevant.  Matt was murdered because he was a devilishly cute 'little queer,' not because of his medical status.  I can hear people saying, "Well, if its true, then people should know."  I say, Why?  What business is it of anyone's?  This 'outing' violates the privacy of Matthew Shepard who never asked to be murdered and become a cultural icon.  And least anyone doubt it for a second, it dilutes the 'issue' and precious meaning of his murder as a result of pure hate.  The real live hate mongers will catch their breath with glee before they start exploiting the news and saying, "Aha, SEE! He would have died anyway; he deserved it;" etc.  I really didn't need to know this, damn it!

Now, the 'AIDS Awareness' activist in me asks, "What the hell was a 22 year old in the late 1990s doing being HIV positive!?"  The answer is that he was a humble human being, just like the rest of us, who was terribly naive and made mistakes.  His sainthood comes not from his life but from the loss of his life by his hateful murder and from the very remarkable dignity of his father who, under the laws of Wyoming, granted life to his murderers rather than the death penalty.

Did the revelation about his positive HIV status have any relevance to this?  Not one damn bit, as far as I can see.  There was a subplot, in the Laramie Project, about the policewoman who cut him loose from the fence and got his blood all over her hands.  Towards the end of the performance, it turns out that she was immensely relieved to find out that she was negative and that she tongue kissed everyone in sight when she got the good news.  How very gratuitous this lurid little sub-drama is.  In the post September 11th world, it is politically correct to take every opportunity to show how selfless police and other public safety people are.  The actor portraying the policewoman pointed out that she 'never gave her own safety a thought' as she valiantly endeavored to free the horribly injured little boy from his bonds.  Yeah, ok, fine; as anyone who has ever held a vomit tray for his dying lover knows, you don't get AIDS from getting your hands anointed by his fluids.  So, what the hell were they thinking in bringing this out?  I'm very cynical, but I don't think there was any politically motivated conspiracy.  I think it was simply to be perverse and controversial in order to increase the odds of winning an award.  Life, in all its vicissitudes, goes on indeed.  So much for my rant.