Gender Oppression
Gender Oppression
PHILADELPHIA
Rated: PG-13 Release Date: 23-Dec-1993
DVD Date: 02-Nov-2004
HBS User Ratings
Directed By:
Written By:
Cast:
1 review, 12 ratings
Jonathan Demme
Ron Nyswaner
Tom Hanks
Denzel Washington
Awesome
16.67%
Antonio Banderas
Worth A Look
11.11%
Our Reviewer Says:
Jason Robards
Just Average
16.67%
“Its a touchy subject.”
– MP Bartley
Joanne Woodward
Pretty Crappy
44.44%
Mary Steenburgen
Sucks
11.11%
Now heres a controversial one – the portrayal of homosexuals and the ravages of AIDS in the movies. How exactly does a machine like Hollywood, not exactly known for its subtlety, cover subjects like these? Does it make a gritty, realistic adult portrayal of the issues at hand? Or does it make a soft-hearted and ultimately dishonest plea for acceptance? Take a guess.
Andrew Beckett (Tom Hanks) is one of Philadelphias most promising lawyers. Hes the hot rookie and is hired by a top law firm headed by Charles Wheeler (Jason Robards). Andy is also gay and dying from AIDS. When the physical signs of the disease begin to manifest themselves, the firm gets cold on Andy and hes out of a job. They tell him its because he has an attitude problem and his work is mediocre, but Andy knows its more personal than that. After no other law firm will take his case for unfair dismissal, his last resort is old adversary Joe Miller (Denzel Washington). Joe, a homophobe with an innate fear of AIDS, is reluctant to take the case also because of his personal reasons, but after seeing Andy humiliated in a public library, cant resist standing his corner with him.
You can see immediately why Hollywood took this film to their heart. Hey, its about ISSUES! But in typical Hollywood fashion, they cant resist the temptation to dumb the issue down to make it easier to sell. Its a difficult thing sometimes, criticising a film like Philadelphia as it leaves the critic open to accusations of homophobia themselves, but Philadelphia patronises the homosexual community so much, its like an instruction video for schoolkids “Listen kids – gays are people too, you know?”.
For instance, Andys family are a carbon-copy of the Waltons. A more loving, accepting family you could never hope to meet, right down to the last second cousin. But wouldnt it have been more interesting and realistic to show some conflict within the family? Would all of Andys male heterosexual relatives been so accepting of him? I know people now who are still ostracised from their family because theyre gay.
And, gosh darn it, if Andy isnt the sweetest human being you could ever hope to meet! Hes handsome, great at his job, and loves babies too! This isnt to say gay men arent like that at all, but this film is so scared of being homophobic, that it refuses to portray Andy as anything less than whiter-than-white. This is where its so patronising, that it becomes damaging.
Theres one instant where the film does attempt to address the grey areas of these issues. Andy is questioned as to how he got AIDS , and its revealed that it comes from an anonymous sexual encounter in a cinema. But this issues of personal responsibility is neatly sidestepped by Joe asking Andy to take his shirt off and reveal the lesions on his body. So just when the film is starting to make you question just how much danger Andy has been putting himself in, it distracts you with a moment of yuck to make you conveniently forget these very relevant questions. “Hey everybody, dont worry about how he got it, just look at how nasty its made him look!”. Its this fogging of the personal and moral questions that makes Philadelphia ultimately dishonest. Would this trick have been played if it was heterosexual man? Probably not, and it again highlights just how patronising the films attitude is. We have to tip-toe around the dark areas, because hes – whisper it quietly- gay. Theres attempts to colour in the murky moral areas, but it takes more than groups of protesters crying “God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!” to achieve that.
Likewise, the law firm Andy sues. Instead of making them flawed, but understandable human beings,