The film, How to survive a plague, documented a few of the leaders of the organization Act Up during the 80s and 90s and their personal, political and social struggles of being diagnosed with AIDS.The film follows two main tracks of the personal stories and interactions of these activists and the political journey of the organization; as the activists are the leaders of the organization their stories are intertwined making the political personal and making the stories of the activists extremely unique. The film is seemingly trying to capture the struggles of the gay male community that was diagnosed, living, fighting and dying from AIDS. This highlights an interesting intersection then of who is representing that community and what power they hold in that organization.
The intersection is called bio-power (Foucault)  where ones genetic make up holds a social value giving one more or less mobility in a society. In this case the society was within the Act Up organization but much their mobility was permitted by the value that the activists had previously to holding these positions. All of them were men (except maybe two or three women who played more supporting roles in the fight), white, tall, and fit all of which are necessities of the ideal man in American culture. They were all well educated an many had very respectable jobs previous to their activist work in Act Up. Perhaps the only 'downfall' to their social status in the current culture (the 80s and 90s) was that most if not all were gay. Was it because of their fit to the American standard of being male that they were able to gain their positions and power in Act Up?
The characteristics shared by each of these activists are very particular and in no way representative of the entire gay/ AIDS population.Yet in the film they are presented as a sample of people that accurately narrate the struggles of that population; however the activists are extremely mobile within the confines of those struggles. How would the story told be different for a poor, disabled woman of color was one of the main activists. Would Act Up or any group of those have been able to make as great of strides as the actual activists did in the film?
These are all very cut and dry approaches yet I feel it is important to examine what is staring you in the face. There is an obvious imbalance of power as seen in who is being portrayed in the film.While there may have been factors outside of the bio-power of the activists which moved them into the leadership roles, it is more likely it was due to their social status and 'maleness' that made them the prime choice.