Released: December 22nd, 1993
Rated: PG-13
Studio: TriStar Pictures
Starring: Tom Hanks, Denzel Washington
Directed by: Jonathan Demme
Written by: Ron Nyswaner
Personal Bias Alert: who doesn’t love Hanks and Denzel?
6 of 10
Philadelphia is very much a period
piece, a work intended to shed light on a prominent issue of its time. Works such as this, no matter what the
medium, can do the world a lot of good.
However, these stories exist due to their context, and as time moves on
and cultural attitudes change, the issues they’re railing against often get resolved
in one way or another, and the work’s commentary suddenly has nothing to
comment on. The path of history is
littered with influential works of art that no longer matter, and I’m afraid
that Philadelphia may be destined to
join their discarded ranks.
To give this film its
best chance, lets discuss some context.
The CDC first used the term AIDS in 1982, one year after the US became
the first government to recognize the illness.
In 1983, the CDC ruled out transmission by casual contact, food, water,
air, or environmental surfaces, which did little to stem the growing concern. Actor Rock Hudson became the first celebrity
to die of AIDS-related illness in 1985, the same year Ryan White was refused
entry to middle school due to having AIDS.
By 1987, AIDS was a global concern, becoming the first disease ever
debated on the floor of the UN. Also
that year, the US added HIV to its immigration exclusion list, making it
impossible for any HIV+ person to enter the country. It took eight years for the total number of
AIDS cases in the US to reach 100,000 in 1989, and a mere six years for that
number to quintuple to 500,000 in 1995.
Smack in the middle of that explosion, AIDS becomes the number one cause
of death for US men between the ages of 25 and 44, and Philadelphia became the first major Hollywood film to focus on
AIDS.
With
the furor surrounding the AIDS crisis at an all-time high, it’s lucky that a
filmmaker like Jonathan Demme was the first to bring the story of an ill lawyer
fighting to be treated equally to the masses.
Several of his trademark techniques are highly effective at getting
audiences to empathize with his characters, a hurdle any film with a gay,
AIDS-stricken character at its center had to overcome. One such trademark of Demme’s is his
stubbornly methodical pacing, which forced his potentially prejudiced audience
to stop and take a good, long look at the disease in question. Another calling card is having his actors
look directly into the camera, which made connecting to its two main characters
almost effortless.
The subsequent public
embrace of Philadelphia’s ill lead
has much to do with Demme’s presentation, but you can’t discount the
brilliantly cast Tom Hanks. Remember, at
the time Hanks was known as a charming comedy actor, so his startlingly gaunt,
sickly appearance was tempered by the public’s general goodwill towards
him. Make no mistake, Hanks turned in a
great performance as lawyer Andrew Beckett, but having a recognizable presence such
as his was a major aide in making people comfortable with this film.
Just
as important, if not more so, is the audience’s conduit into the film, here
played by Denzel Washington. As a
prejudiced man himself, Washington’s Joe Miller is Andrew’s reluctant lawyer,
who’s as uncomfortable around Beckett as the audience is. Washington is the only character who
undergoes any major changes, and it’s his journey towards understanding and
acceptance that Demme steers the audience towards.
So,
we have a film perfectly set up for its time.
It did what was necessary to impart a message of tolerance to an
unwilling audience, which is a wholly admirable undertaking, but the shortcuts
it took to get there become blatantly obvious to those of us coming at it from
a different perspective. The time the
movie takes to hit you over the head with just how decent Andrew is becomes
ponderous. The prejudiced bosses he’s suing
are so evil they may as well pass their time twirling their mustaches, and
Miller’s path to acceptance is filled with enough heavy-handed road markers to
direct an incoming jetliner. The whole
thing is just so one note that it’s difficult to get whole-heartedly behind
it. If you’re like me, you’ll find
yourself nodding along to the film’s message, thinking ‘well duh that’s wrong.’
I can’t
say I was particularly entertained by this film, but it’s pleasant and might
still be useful in persuading stragglers to let go of their prejudices. I can’t imagine anyone whose compassion
wouldn’t eke out after seeing Hank’s Kaposi’s sarcoma riddled body.
Other Notes:
Ø To
write this review, I relied heavily on A Timeline of AIDS found at http://www.aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/hiv-aids-101/aids-timeline/
Ø The
excellent makeup work got across the progression of Andrew’s illness very well.
Ø I
tried not to explain this movie to you like you were a four-year-old.
No comments:
Post a Comment