← Back to Reviews
in
Philadelphia, 1993
Hotshot lawyer Andrew (Tom Hanks) works for one of the most prestigious law firms in the state. But when Andrew, who has AIDS, begins to suffer more obviously from his illness, he is suddenly and unexpectedly fired from the firm. Andrew seeks out the assistance of injury lawyer Joe (Denzel Washington) to help him mount a case against the law firm. Joe must confront his own homophobia as the two men collaborate on the case.
In his opening to the jury, Joe tells them that this will not be like the movies: there will be no last minute reveals, no shocking and damning testimony from the witness stand. That this will be a case about facts and about the truth.
While this didn't actually hold true for the whole film--I would say that there were two moments that counted as shocking courtroom happenings--the film does resist a big "a-ha" moment. Like a lot of discrimination in the workplace, what happened to Andrew wasn't something that left a paper trail. There are no internal memos saying "We need to fire the gay guy." There are no deep conspiracies. This is a story about the way that people with power have the ability to simply push away and sideline those who are different or who make them uncomfortable.
Hanks and Washington are both very solid in their roles. Washington's character is interesting, as much of his homophobia comes from ignorance. In an early scene, he claims not to know any gay people, and is then shocked when his wife lists off half a dozen of their friends and family. Washington begins as someone who is merely interested in the legal aspect of the case, but as he gets to know Andrew, he understands the human cost of what has happened. Hanks walks a nice line between a man who is very solid in his understanding of his own abilities and what has happened to him, and a man whose body is slowly failing.
Probably one of the best aspects of the movie is the portrayal of the firm's partners. While they don't get a ton of screen time, they are more than one-dimensional. Yes, they are homophobic, and yes, they let their discomfort with Andrew drive them to fire a man without cause. But as the film goes on, we begin to see the cracks in their position. They respect Andrew as a lawyer, and even like him (to a degree) as a person. Again: it's not about a "gotcha" moment. It's about telling the truth about why they made their decision.
As with any social issue film from a while back, it's fascinating to think how far things have come. In this case, I mean both in terms of the treatment and prevention of HIV and the general cultural acceptance of gay people. Yeah, there are still homophobes braying about "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve", but the idea of an educated person being afraid to touch a gay person seems incredibly foreign. (The film does a nice job of framing the anxieties of the time, specifically that HIV could possibly be transmitted by touch, even though Joe's doctor correctly lays out that that's not the case).
Overall a satisfying courtroom drama that delivers both in and out of the court sequences.
Philadelphia, 1993
Hotshot lawyer Andrew (Tom Hanks) works for one of the most prestigious law firms in the state. But when Andrew, who has AIDS, begins to suffer more obviously from his illness, he is suddenly and unexpectedly fired from the firm. Andrew seeks out the assistance of injury lawyer Joe (Denzel Washington) to help him mount a case against the law firm. Joe must confront his own homophobia as the two men collaborate on the case.
In his opening to the jury, Joe tells them that this will not be like the movies: there will be no last minute reveals, no shocking and damning testimony from the witness stand. That this will be a case about facts and about the truth.
While this didn't actually hold true for the whole film--I would say that there were two moments that counted as shocking courtroom happenings--the film does resist a big "a-ha" moment. Like a lot of discrimination in the workplace, what happened to Andrew wasn't something that left a paper trail. There are no internal memos saying "We need to fire the gay guy." There are no deep conspiracies. This is a story about the way that people with power have the ability to simply push away and sideline those who are different or who make them uncomfortable.
Hanks and Washington are both very solid in their roles. Washington's character is interesting, as much of his homophobia comes from ignorance. In an early scene, he claims not to know any gay people, and is then shocked when his wife lists off half a dozen of their friends and family. Washington begins as someone who is merely interested in the legal aspect of the case, but as he gets to know Andrew, he understands the human cost of what has happened. Hanks walks a nice line between a man who is very solid in his understanding of his own abilities and what has happened to him, and a man whose body is slowly failing.
Probably one of the best aspects of the movie is the portrayal of the firm's partners. While they don't get a ton of screen time, they are more than one-dimensional. Yes, they are homophobic, and yes, they let their discomfort with Andrew drive them to fire a man without cause. But as the film goes on, we begin to see the cracks in their position. They respect Andrew as a lawyer, and even like him (to a degree) as a person. Again: it's not about a "gotcha" moment. It's about telling the truth about why they made their decision.
As with any social issue film from a while back, it's fascinating to think how far things have come. In this case, I mean both in terms of the treatment and prevention of HIV and the general cultural acceptance of gay people. Yeah, there are still homophobes braying about "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve", but the idea of an educated person being afraid to touch a gay person seems incredibly foreign. (The film does a nice job of framing the anxieties of the time, specifically that HIV could possibly be transmitted by touch, even though Joe's doctor correctly lays out that that's not the case).
Overall a satisfying courtroom drama that delivers both in and out of the court sequences.