What did you think of Philadelphia (1993)?

I just saw the movie with my gf and she loved it. I feel that it was very strange though, just the way the whole thing was written or directed, something seemed off. I feel that the director, Jonathan Demme, directed it very much the same as The Silence of the Lambs, in fact too much alike.

That kind of directing style worked for Silence of the Lambs, cause it's a psychological horror movie, but hear he has the same style with dead on face shots in extreme close up, after actors looking into the camera intensely a lot.

He even re-uses the shot, in Silence of the Lambs, when Clarice Starling is approaching the coffin in slow motion and shoots it the same way, accept here, it's Beckett's friend approaching the bathroom to see why is is throwing up. Why did the director re-use the same shot, for a completely different context, when it doesn't seem to work the same?

Even the opera scene goes on for questionably long with Beckett in this psychological state, that seemed overdone, unless it's just me?

Just not sure it worked for this one. The music is even more eerie and operatic sounding than it should be for a court case drama it seems.

I feel that the court case was oddly handled, with the attorneys asking the attestants questions that don't seem like questions they would ask, but are being asked for obvious drama reasons. Like when ever a witness is on the stand, Miller (Washington), will ask him if he is gay.

Why would a lawyer ask that question, if he does not know the answer, and it just doesn't help the case? That would be like a lawyer, defending someone who is accused of murder, by asking every witness, if they ever murdered anyone. How are remarks like that going to look to a jury?

Also, they never explained why Miller put a witness on the stand, and then asks the witness, if he had anything to do with sabotaging his client into being fired, and the witness kept saying no. It is made clear in the movie, that this witness is Miller's witness, buy why would Miller put a witness on the stand, who is going to deny everything he is trying to proof? It didn't make sense to me, unless I missed something?

The opposing attorney, also asks Beckett, questions like who he had sex with in a porno movie theater, back in 85, etc, and if he new what AIDS was. Questions like these don't do her any favors for her case, cause it's about why the company fired him and not his behavior for getting the disease.

I also did not get some of the characters motivations that much and felt that they needed to spend more time on them. There is a guy at the law firm who says that he would regret helping to fire Beckett for the rest of his life, but if he is under such regret, than why did he go along with this decision with the others in the first place. They don't really explain the character change.

There is also the attorney who is opposite of Miller, who at first comes off like a real mustache twirler, cross examining witnesses, with this diabolical smile on her face, but then later on, she said she hates the case, as she is hating what she is doing. Where did this character change come from all of a sudden.

I feel that maybe the movie had to spend more time on this supporting characters, if the writers wanted to give them arcs.

Also, I am surprised Hanks won the Oscar for best actor that year because I felt like was given more of a standard vanilla performance, and nothing more. I mean he had to act emotional for sure, but I think maybe it was standard vanilla, emotional more so, unless I'm wrong. It's not a bad performance, I just didn't see how it's the best of the year, sort of thing. This might not having anything to do with his talent though, but maybe what he had to work with, or the direction he was given.

So did I miss something, and missed why this movie was well liked for it's time, or what do you think of it?

The problem here, as usual, is that you don’t understand people very well. Miller did what he did to prove a point about attitudes and perceptions. As for the other lawyer, there was no change in her character. Lawyers don’t always agree with their clients. But it’s not their job to agree. It’s their job to find a way to win the case, no matter what their personal feelings are about the issue being argued.

__________________

Oh okay I thought there was a change in her character unless she were just pretending to have a different demeanor, for appearance sake.

As for the lawyer trying to prove a point on attitudes and perceptions, how is asking every witness if they are gay, going to help that? It's a yes or no question, and I thought that if he were to ask every witness this, then the jury will just see him as a pompous ass, I would have thought.

Answer why Van Gogh used blues and you have your answer to the close-ups. At least in part.

You MUST find a way to see the world through other people's eyes. You always seem to assume everyone has the same aesthetics and perspective that you bring to the table.

When was this movie made? How old are you? Do you think it's at all possible that social views and acceptance of homosexuality might be different today compared to the early 90s? Do you know of the social contexts and absolute fear of the relatively unknown disease, Aids or HIV, during the late 80s to mid-90s?

Washington's character showed signs of fear of both the disease and the risk of perception that he might be gay just by handling the case throughout the movie. He even showed his irrational fear when telling his doctor about being fine today but in 6 months finding out that Aids could be transmitted through touch, infecting him and his daughter. Then there was the library scene if you need more perspective on how people viewed those infected by the disease at the time. He asked witnesses if they were gay to show how completely uncomfortable and biased people were of the idea, ultimately to prove discrimination and prejudice.

You tend to focus on the part rather than how the part serves a larger whole. For example, you might obsess over the logic of a gear's shape but completely ignore the pocket watch in front of you that can only function with that oddly shaped gear.

In other words, look at it all from the juror's eyes sitting in the early 1990s, completely ignorant on a topic that we, today, take for granted. They do not know what you know. Don't try to force your awareness on the character. Instead, empathize with the limits that the character is confined by. Shift YOUR perspective and things will be so much easier.

Oh okay, I'm 34. I had no problem with the way the whole AIDS issue was presented in the movie, I just felt that the courtroom tactics seemed flawed on the part of the lawyers, but also the judge for letting it go on, but that was just my perception of it. I just thought that by asking every witness if they were gay, it would make the jury hate him even more, like he is trying to get a rise out of the courtroom, and thought it wouldn't work in his favor.

But the one witness he puts on the stand and asks him if he is gay. The witness says he had nothing to do with any type of frame up that happened. But why would he put a witness on the stand, if the witness is going to deny framing the client? This probably was a hugely wrong move, putting a witness on the stand who is going to deny the whole thing. And the Tom Hanks character doesn't even criticize him for doing such a thing.

Why would he put a witness up there, who is not going to agree that the client was set up to be fired?

Well, I figure that's writer privilege for drama. I also think the outburst was not meant for the witness; rather, Washington's character finally facing his own fear and anger towards gay people in general. Don't forget that the previous scene in a convenience store had Wahington's character "hit on" by a guy in the store. He was enraged that he could think he was gay and threatened him with physical violence before leaving the store in anger.

I think this reaction was probably brooding for him in a conflict of ego and guilt during the witness questioning. Ultimately he confronted what his problem was, then redirected that outburst after the judge called him to the bench. He then spoke very openly and direct to the jurors and really everyone in the court room about this underlying fear and bias they likely all shared.

But the placement of the convenience store and the various other encounters where people teased him (Washington) of being gay all were kind of leading up to this.

It's not obvious and I may very well be wrong, but all the breadcrumbs provided during the entire movie can be pieced together to support that narrative.

Oh okay, thanks. I watched the movie a second time, and I can see it now that his outburst was not a planned strategy he had perhaps.

However, I don't understand why the defendant's attorney would object to his outburst. The defendant's attorney says "Objection, he is attacking his own witness, where is this coming from?" And it didn't make any sense to me why the defense would object to that, because the defense wants the plaintiffs to attack their own witness, and make a fool of themselves, if that is what the plaintiff attorney is going to do. They wouldn't object, they would just let it happen. So I didn't understand why she objected to that.

Principle maybe. But if nothing else, then to try to keep order in the court room. I'd figure the judge would have stopped it first but there needs to be drama for drama's sake.

Oh okay, cause if I put myself in a lawyer's shoes and the other lawyer is digging their own hole with a witness, I would just let it go on and not object.

But for drama's sake, wouldn't it be more dramatic if the judge stopped it and said "If you continue to attack your own witness, I'm going to..." whatever a judge would do in that case?

I thought hearing it from the judge would be more dramatic.

I guess I just felt the movie was too Hollywood when it came to it's representation of such a court case, when the could have made a more down and realistic approach to it, unless I'm wrong for thinking it's too Hollywood?

Maybe it was another writer's attempt at showing that she was human and actually has normal feelings. Like the comment earlier when she said she hates this case. Why give that to the audience? Well, maybe both her making the comment then and also defending the witness were meant to show her layers. Doing her job as required, but also having the compassion to feel bad knowing the firing that she's defending was probably discrimination. I mean technically she was defending the witness being assaulted by Washinton's homosexual slurs and accusations---kinda mimicking the bigger picture of Hanks' character being fired by the same ugly attitude. She defended him so there's a weird conflict of interest there that a lot of people were probably struggling with as well. She might have been the character to show that struggle rather than showing 5 or more general population throw-away characters going through the same thing. If that was the intent then it was more efficient. Ecen if that may not literally happen in court. Certain liberties have to be taken to tell stories.

It might not happen in a real court, but as a narrative tool it doesn't necessarily break courtroom standard (at least from the general audience's perspective) though it does offer opportunity to pivot both lawyers' attitudes on the subject.

Oh okay, but if the lawyers are going to do things that hurt their case, I feel like their clients should have commented. Like why didn't they have show Tom Hanks after saying what were you thinking putting a witness on the stand who was going to deny the termination being about AIDS, and then attack him about it after. Have Hanks be frustrated.

Or why didn't they have the Jason Robards character, talk to the his lawyer and say why did you object to that, when he was digging his own hole? If the lawyers were just being human, why didn't their clients criticize them for it, if it hurts their cases? Wouldn't that add more drama to the human qualities of the attorneys?

Because it's fiction.

Characters do what writers plan, not what the real world dictates. Writers subjectively measure various bits and pieces to hopefully choose a path that prioritizes narrative over most everything else, hoping not to go too far in any one direction 2i guess.

Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't.

Barring this very insignificant criticism of real world protocol, does it support or hurt the BROADER story? Remember, the story is about descrimination and not at all about legal court procedure.

Having the client criticize the lawyer's actions wouldn't have served the story in the slightest, ever how appropriate that might have been in a real courtroom. You take a path for as far as necessary to serve the story. What might have played out after is kind of irrelevant.

For example: Kids riding the banana boat in Jaws the Revenge. The banana boat is important only to set up the risk of children being attacked by a shark. Well what happened to the boat after Jaws snagged the lady of the float? Did they try to patch it? Throw it away? I mean logical people would try to salvage it especially considering it was likely a money-making pay-to-ride attraction. Surely the owner had insurance on it. Speaking of insurance, would the owner be liable for a wrongful death claim? What court would such a claim be tried? Would it even go to court? Who cares?! All that is peripheral to the story of a giant shark stalking a family across the ocean. It's irrelevant because its not a story about the life and death of a banana boat, though I admit sounds life a fun topic for a story.

Oh okay, I thought that the clients would at least whisper something to them or criticize them for it afterwards. I thought that would create drama too, since it's worked before in other courtroom dramas, if the lawyers made mistakes.

I never saw Jaws: The Revenge so I couldn't say for that one.

But even if the Denzel Washington character was not planning on having an outburst, why would he put that witness on the stand, if the witness is going to deny the client being fired cause of AIDS? Wouldn't that be a bad witness to put on the stand, if that is what he said before?

Having seen the movie was not my point. Rather, the continuous spiralling of "what about this?" type of questioning was. All my questions regarding the banana boat are all completely irrelevant to the story. As is your string of endless questioning of details that were most likely purposefully brushed under the rug by the director because those points are ...irrelevant to the larger story. Again, this is not a life documentary of court procedure. Details will be glossed over that are not directly related to the story---as with every story ever told.

Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water. Well why was the water well uphill? Water feeds down due to gravity. Who would dig a well uphill farther away from the water table?

It does not matter! The story is that jack must fall down and you can't fall uphill, so liberties were taken and details were ommited.

He put the witness on the stand because the writer needed a trigger for a dramatic turning point for Washington's character. He/she flipped a coin probably. Why go so deep into trivial points? Take the movie as a whole and recognize that there will inevitably be weak points. Nothing is perfect and everyone has different metrics of acceptability.

That ultimately is the answer to every question you have and will ever ask. Different strokes for different folks.

Oh okay, but wouldn't it make more sense if the other lawyer put the witness on the stand, and then Denzel crossed examine him? Cause if it's her witness, than it would make more sense. I know it doesn't have to be realistic, but it seemed that making it her witness, instead of his, would have been an easy way to make it make more sense, and it doesn't require hardly any rewriting. You just switch the witness to hers.

But since the movie is a courtroom drama, I thought that the way the courtroom was handled is a huge factor in the story, unless I am wrong, and the courtroom should be used as background only and the procedures are not that important.

But when judging the movie, another scene I did not get is when the Tom Hanks character, goes on his huge opera craze, and Denzel is watching him dance, and they have all these crazy lighting effects as if Hanks is going crazy. I did not understand what this was about at all, or why the director chose to go this way with the scene. Did I miss something?

Yes.

Oh okay, what did I miss?