What is there not to understand? When I watched this film, I watched it with my boyfriend (who's a fine artist), and a gay male couple. Well, my boyfriend and I understood the artistry, the pain, the suffering, the political turmoil, the poetry, the usage of English/Spanish, basically the entire story. This is a pretty straight forward story, that had a beautiful & imaginative cinematography & direction. This was a dynamite film that should be watched. What bothered me was the reaction of the gay couple in the room. One of them kinda understood the sorrow, and at least understood that this was someone's life story, however... the 'control freak' out of the two took this plot as a stab at homosexuality? If I missed something here, please point this out to me! I continued to ask this individual why he thought so, and he said "Its just another film that makes AIDS look like a Gay disease!" I'm like "Are you f*cking kidding me? Did we just watch the same film? Did you pay attention to ANYTHING in that film?" I just dropped the discussion before it turned into a heated argument (because believe me, I can argue.) I thought that movie was done in with taste, despite its frank nature. Who cares if the man was promiscuous or not... that didnt necessarily mean that's how he contracted it! He could've contracted it while he was in prison for all we know... but we don't, and it doesn't matter. It's tragic that he was inflicted with the virus, but it doesn't matter how it was contracted... that was his business. However, the fact that he was openly gay, and that obviously posed as an obstacle as a way of living his life for the most part NEEDED to be addressed in this film... I mean... how was he going to emigrate to America any other way? Let's be honest, his homosexuality was interesting to the plot, and Javier Bardem pulling off those scenes (I have no idea if he's gay or not) it takes B*LLS to do scenes like that convincingly without being typecasted. Bardem was excellent, Arenas was an excellent writer (and yes I have read his literature) and it was a film that needed to be made. I feel Schnabel's direction in this one was much better than "Basquiat", even though that was also a good film, I have a feeling this one was more honest... it was more in your face, and was still a true aethestic vision.