Philadelphia

What do you love about the law, Andrew?

Andrew Beckett is a gay lawyer infected with AIDS, who in spite of being his law firm's rising star, is fired on a trumped up charge of negligence. Refusing to accept defeat, Andrew manages to enlist the help of homophobic lawyer Joe Miller, whom it's hoped, can prove that the firm acted disgracefully out of fear of Andrew's illness. But can Joe throw off his own prejudice? Can Andrew keep it together as AIDS starts to take a hold?

Philadelphia was the film to really bring the horrors of AIDS to the masses. Though certainly not the first film to deal with the subject, films such as "An Early Frost (1985)" and "As Is (1986)" had led the way, Philadelphia is certainly the most memorable of all the mainstream films dealing with the subject.

As the years have rolled by, the film's standing has waned some what, gays have renounced the film as over sentimental gloop and various other cinema critics have accused the film of confusing its aims. The truth is that Philadelphia is only really guilty of playing it safe. Andrew Beckett is clearly wronged, and he's clearly a lovely and special man, supported by a complete and loyal loving family. It's the character set up that never really puts the film in any real danger of becoming edgy, even the strand dealing with homophobia is only briefly given credence. However, where the makers do achieve their aims, is with the emotional aspects, something that lifts Philadelphia to a far higher plain in the pantheon of emotional kickers.

The tone of the film is set courtesy of Bruce Springsteen's Oscar winning "Streets Of Philadelphia", which acts as a sombre portent of things to come during the opening credit sequence. From here on in the story is content with gnawing away at our heart strings and breaking down prejudice barriers in the name of fair play and adult fallibility's. Part court room drama and part human tragedy, Philadelphia is never found wanting in the engrossing depa...

Yet another of those movies I watched close to when it came out umpteen years ago, and only recently watched again.

For entertainment value, it hasn’t aged particularly well for me. I am not sure I can even describe why, except that it seemed to lack energy. There are a lot of good small moments, but its big moments struggle to live up to their potential. The courtroom scenes slow the story down in places, and the climactic scene that decided the case wasn’t convincing to me.

Still, this was an important movie addressing the AIDS when it came out, and the two low lead actors, even though they both give an understated performance, carry the film quite nicely.

Compelling performances by both Tom Hanks and Denzel Washington. And to think I almost didn't watch this because the poster doesn't look like Hanks...

A dense, disturbing, difficult, but highly relevant film.

Well, those who has the patience and charity to read what I write may have already realized that I'm not a big fan of overly militant films, even if they are causes or ideas that I defend or with which I tend to agree. For me, cinema is above all entertainment and artistic expression, not a political, social or belief manifesto. However, it is really difficult not to make an exception when it comes to discrimination against people in the workplace. I know what my friendly reader is probably thinking: the film isn't about that, it's about AIDS. It is true. But AIDS is a pretext to justify what happens to that man. He is discriminated against and loses his job for being homosexual.

I won't waste a lot of time explaining what happens in the film. It's relatively old and almost everyone has seen it at least once: Andrew Beckett is a young lawyer with a promising future until he discovers that he has contracted AIDS in a casual sexual encounter with another man. The disease becomes increasingly obvious to his bosses, and he ends up being fired, which is why he decides to sue the firm, arguing that the real motivation for the dismissal was their prejudice regarding his (discrete) homosexuality, which the disease denounced.

The film is excellent and, at the time, did a lot to demystify AIDS, a disease about which there was little general knowledge and which many people feared because it was not very evident how it was spread. Nowadays, with more information and public knowledge, these myths have disappeared, but that does not prevent the disease from being one of the most feared, along with cancer or leukemia. However, the film was not able to detach AIDS from homosexuality. I understand this: a disease like this spreads easily in social environments where sexual behavior is more liberal, and we know that a good part of GLBT's do not have very stable relationships. But the truth is that we, today, know...

It's quite hard to overstate how significant this film was at a time when AIDS-driven homophobia was rife. Right from the outset with Bruce Springsteen's delicate opening ballad, this effectively counters an whole range of prejudices that prevailed not just in the USA but around the world. It's also, easily in my view, Tom Hanks's best performance as he plays hotshot lawyer "Andy" who has been feeling under the weather. Blood tests tell him the worst news that he shares with his loving family and boyfriend "Miguel" (Antonio Banderas) but he isn't really prepared to get fired from his job. Luckily, he had previously crossed paths with "Joe" (Denzel Washington) so he asks him to represent him in a wrongful dismissal lawsuit. "Andy" is candid about his sexuality and his condition and the clearly wary "Joe" politely declines. It's a chance meeting in a law library a few days later that illustrates just the tip of the bigotry iceberg being faced by the visibly sickening man to get fair treatment and so "Joe" relents. What now ensues is, on the face of it, just another courtroom drama but it is hugely augmented by the willingness of some serious Hollywood establishment names to showcase the genuine senses of fear, disgust and even hatred as the narrative unravels. Washington's character has his own prejudices to overcome and Jason Robards, though he features quite sparingly, is effective as the erstwhile boss who can barely disguise his contempt for his former star-employee. It's cleverly scripted avoiding too much sentiment or stereotype as it presents us with a potent look at a fight for justice - not just in the courtroom itself, but amongst a public opinion that is scared and hostile. Thought-provoking cinema that plays a strong hand well, and though not always an easy watch, it is well worth it.

Very good. I did think I'd enjoy 'Philadelphia' much more though, solely based on who appears on the poster.

The performances of Tom Hanks and Denzel Washington are impressive enough, though I'd say they have done greater in other productions. The story they portray here is a sizeable one and it is well told, it certainly makes you feel uncomfortable in parts and saddened in many others.

I do feel like the pacing could've been better, a shorter run time perhaps would've helped. Overall, if I'm honest, my interest in this wasn't all that strong throughout, I couldn't shake the feeling of wanting something more from it. I can still acknowledge it's objective quality, of course.