← Back to Reviews
in
Plot - Andrew Beckett (Hanks) is a highly skilled lawyer and a senior associate at the biggest corporate law firm in Philadelphia. He has kept the fact that he is a homosexual private from the senior partners, but his secret comes out when he contracts AIDS. Shortly afterwards he is fired from the firm; and while he is given the excuse that it was for professional reasons he is convinced he was let go as a result of his disease. When he decides to sue his former employers, Andrew hires showy and homophobic lawyer, Joe Miller (Washington). During the ensuing court case Joe begins to see Andrew for what he is, a human being no different from anyone else. Andrew's degrading health however may mean that he does not make it to the case's conclusion.
I've got to say that I was rather surprised at just how run of the mill Philadelphia was in some ways. It takes a pretty standard structure that we've seen in numerous guises and just gives us the gay/AIDS version of that story. You could take the characters that Hanks and Washington played, change them around ever so slightly, plug them back in and you'd have a different film. If one was female and the other was a bit of a chauvinist you have a movie about sexism. If one was black and the other a racist, it's a race movie. If one was Christian and the other Muslin...well you get the idea.
As such, when viewed today, Philadelphia may appear a touch tame and uncontentious in how it addresses its subject; you may even accuse it of attempting to sidestep any controversy, but I think you have to look at it in context. Back in 1993 when the film was released AIDS was still a very controversial topic and a great fear for many people, largely out of ignorance about the disease and the ways in which it could be transmitted. Philadelphia was the first major Hollywood film on the subject, and if it had set out to present a truly hard-hitting look at gay relationships and how AIDS impacted both the individual and those around them, it may have been commended but it would probably have been seen by about 12 people; not exactly the outcome the studio would be looking for to their risk. So to make it more appealing to mainstream audiences we get a more traditional, easier to swallow narrative. The topic of AIDS is instead told through the structure of a classic courtroom drama, an old favourite for audiences and a much safer bet for the higher-ups at the studio. It also makes it a lot easier to guarantee audience support for Hanks' character. So we are not just supposed to be backing a gay man suffering from AIDS, but that old tale of the little man taking on the big heartless corporation; something that is always easy to support no matter what form the little man takes. And this approach certainly proved to be a smart move on the part of the studio as the film was not only a big hit at the awards ceremonies, but it went on to gross over $200 million worldwide at the box office.
Philadelphia does have the tendency to have a little bit of a TV movie feel to it, except for when it comes to the performances which are quite clearly a cut above what you would likely find there. This is particularly true of the film's two central roles. In his Oscar-winning turn, Hanks gives an excellent and truly heartbreaking performance as Andrew Beckett, the lawyer stuck down by AIDS. He portrays the character both with a great courage and strength in the face of his condition, but also with the inevitable fragility and weakness that the condition will unavoidably bring upon him. It is a spectacularly touching and affecting performance. In particular I absolutely loved his work in the opera scene but we'll come to that later. And the physical changes that he goes through are really quite distressing to witness, especially to such a recognisable and much-loved face as his. And it wasn't just the make-up that brought about such a transformation; Hanks himself lost almost 30 pounds in order to give Andrew his especially gaunt appearance towards the end. This is just one of the many tremendous performances that Hank has gifted to us, and while I may have slightly edged towards Liam Neeson for the Best Actor Oscar (though I'm really not sure) Hanks was certainly very deserving of the win.
Opposite him Washington also gives a strong showing as the rather complex Joe Miller. Sadly like the large majority of people he treats Andrew and his condition with a sense of fear and outright disgust; the character even admits straight-up to his wife that he is homophobic, as is seen by a violent confrontation he gets involved in when he is talked up by a man who believes Miller is gay. Quite the showman, the only reason he seems to take on the case is for the money and the amount of media exposure it will earn him. I actually found his character to be really frustrating in terms of his treatment towards Andrew and other gay people suffering from AIDS. You would think that if anyone would sympathise with individuals being judged on their appearance, and people not wanting to touch them for fear of being infected, it would be an African American man who had lived through the 60s. Despite my frustration with the character, I had nothing but admiration for how Washington played the character. In large part it may be a two-hander but there is also some commendable work to be found amongst the supporting cast with Robards and Steenburgen particularly impressing. And despite the relatively small size of her role, Joanne Woodward really delivers in a couple of the film's strongest and most pivotal moments.
As I alluded to earlier there is a wonderful scene about two-thirds of the way through the film involving opera; it's an excellent scene which proves a vital point of the story and also shows the talents of Hanks and Washington at their absolute finest. Following a party Andrew and Joe are left alone in Andrew's apartment. While Joe is attempting to prepare Andrew for his deposition all Andrew wants to do is get to know each other a little better. A piece of opera begins to play in the background and Andrew is taken over by it. The heartbreaking aria is one that Andrew can identify with in his dying condition. He stands up and begins to explain what is being said and Joe, initially appearing rather bemused, gets caught up in it and finally 'sees' Andrew for the first time. He doesn't seem him purely as a gay man with AIDS but as a human being pure and simple, one with a love for life and a desire not to die. Afterwards Joe goes home, kisses his sleeping daughter and wife as he realises how lucky he is, and then just stares in contemplation. Hanks is exceptional in this sequence, so tragic and agonising to watch as he pours so much passion into it. In contrast Washington doesn't actually utter a single word during the sequence. He just watches on, but Washington is able to convey his characters emotions and his change in outlook merely through his eyes. We see that something in him changes. The way that the scene is presented by Demme is also an important factor in creating the sheer power of it. The film briefly abandons its sense of reality as Andrew and his apartment are bathed in a dark red, operatic light while Demme employs high and tight camera angles to really immerse you in the moment and Andrew's suffering. It's a wonderful moment concerning the power of art and is just a truly wonderful piece of cinema. And such a more powerful scene than what you may typically find, some big moment of back and forth dialogue which reveals Joe's transition for example.
By presenting the story in the form that we are given we do know pretty much exactly where it is going. We know that at some point Washington's character is going to go through a revelatory experience which will force him to shed his prejudices towards gay people. We know the likely outcome of the case long before it has been decided by the jury. However the performances and the way that Demme handles the film ensures that it remains a very engaging, and occasionally enthralling film throughout. Even if some of the story and its messages are a bit obvious and on the nose; particularly guilty I felt was the ending which featured home movies of Andrew as a young boy, that just felt a little bit too manipulative. Oh and I was a touch disappointed in the fact that Beckett's relationship with Miguel (played by Antonio Banderas) wasn't really given much exposure; it felt like it was rather glossed over.
Conclusion - Philadelphia may not have been quite as powerful or confrontational as it could have been but I'd say that it marked an important step in portraying gay characters and issues with more depth and respect in major Hollywood films. And it does remain a very affecting and moving experience, largely down to two excellent lead performances, especially Hanks' exceptional turn as Andrew Beckett.
|
|
Year of release
1993
1993
Directed by
Jonathan Demme
Jonathan Demme
Written by
Roy Nyswaner
Roy Nyswaner
Starring
Tom Hanks
Denzel Washington
Jason Robards
Antonio Banderas
Joanne Woodward
Mary Steenburgen
Tom Hanks
Denzel Washington
Jason Robards
Antonio Banderas
Joanne Woodward
Mary Steenburgen
Philadelphia
+
Plot - Andrew Beckett (Hanks) is a highly skilled lawyer and a senior associate at the biggest corporate law firm in Philadelphia. He has kept the fact that he is a homosexual private from the senior partners, but his secret comes out when he contracts AIDS. Shortly afterwards he is fired from the firm; and while he is given the excuse that it was for professional reasons he is convinced he was let go as a result of his disease. When he decides to sue his former employers, Andrew hires showy and homophobic lawyer, Joe Miller (Washington). During the ensuing court case Joe begins to see Andrew for what he is, a human being no different from anyone else. Andrew's degrading health however may mean that he does not make it to the case's conclusion.
I've got to say that I was rather surprised at just how run of the mill Philadelphia was in some ways. It takes a pretty standard structure that we've seen in numerous guises and just gives us the gay/AIDS version of that story. You could take the characters that Hanks and Washington played, change them around ever so slightly, plug them back in and you'd have a different film. If one was female and the other was a bit of a chauvinist you have a movie about sexism. If one was black and the other a racist, it's a race movie. If one was Christian and the other Muslin...well you get the idea.
As such, when viewed today, Philadelphia may appear a touch tame and uncontentious in how it addresses its subject; you may even accuse it of attempting to sidestep any controversy, but I think you have to look at it in context. Back in 1993 when the film was released AIDS was still a very controversial topic and a great fear for many people, largely out of ignorance about the disease and the ways in which it could be transmitted. Philadelphia was the first major Hollywood film on the subject, and if it had set out to present a truly hard-hitting look at gay relationships and how AIDS impacted both the individual and those around them, it may have been commended but it would probably have been seen by about 12 people; not exactly the outcome the studio would be looking for to their risk. So to make it more appealing to mainstream audiences we get a more traditional, easier to swallow narrative. The topic of AIDS is instead told through the structure of a classic courtroom drama, an old favourite for audiences and a much safer bet for the higher-ups at the studio. It also makes it a lot easier to guarantee audience support for Hanks' character. So we are not just supposed to be backing a gay man suffering from AIDS, but that old tale of the little man taking on the big heartless corporation; something that is always easy to support no matter what form the little man takes. And this approach certainly proved to be a smart move on the part of the studio as the film was not only a big hit at the awards ceremonies, but it went on to gross over $200 million worldwide at the box office.
Philadelphia does have the tendency to have a little bit of a TV movie feel to it, except for when it comes to the performances which are quite clearly a cut above what you would likely find there. This is particularly true of the film's two central roles. In his Oscar-winning turn, Hanks gives an excellent and truly heartbreaking performance as Andrew Beckett, the lawyer stuck down by AIDS. He portrays the character both with a great courage and strength in the face of his condition, but also with the inevitable fragility and weakness that the condition will unavoidably bring upon him. It is a spectacularly touching and affecting performance. In particular I absolutely loved his work in the opera scene but we'll come to that later. And the physical changes that he goes through are really quite distressing to witness, especially to such a recognisable and much-loved face as his. And it wasn't just the make-up that brought about such a transformation; Hanks himself lost almost 30 pounds in order to give Andrew his especially gaunt appearance towards the end. This is just one of the many tremendous performances that Hank has gifted to us, and while I may have slightly edged towards Liam Neeson for the Best Actor Oscar (though I'm really not sure) Hanks was certainly very deserving of the win.
Film Trivia Snippets - Working titles for the film included "People Like Us", "At Risk" and "Probable Cause". /// It may have proved to be one of the defining roles of Hanks' career but the role of Andrew Beckett was offered to Daniel Day Lewis, Michael Keaton and Andy Garcia ahead of him. /// I just mentioned above how Hanks had to lose almost 30 pounds for the film. In contrast Washington was actually asked to put on a few pounds. Hanks had to almost starve himself to lose the weight and on set Washington would wind him up by frequently eating chocolate bars in front of him. /// During the trial we are shown a number of protesters standing outside the courthouse holding signs with anti-gay slogans on them. These individuals were based on the members of the disgustingly anti-gay Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, which is led by “Reverend” Fred Phelps. Phelps has described this as “one of my favourite comedies.” The sick, pathetic b*stard!
As I alluded to earlier there is a wonderful scene about two-thirds of the way through the film involving opera; it's an excellent scene which proves a vital point of the story and also shows the talents of Hanks and Washington at their absolute finest. Following a party Andrew and Joe are left alone in Andrew's apartment. While Joe is attempting to prepare Andrew for his deposition all Andrew wants to do is get to know each other a little better. A piece of opera begins to play in the background and Andrew is taken over by it. The heartbreaking aria is one that Andrew can identify with in his dying condition. He stands up and begins to explain what is being said and Joe, initially appearing rather bemused, gets caught up in it and finally 'sees' Andrew for the first time. He doesn't seem him purely as a gay man with AIDS but as a human being pure and simple, one with a love for life and a desire not to die. Afterwards Joe goes home, kisses his sleeping daughter and wife as he realises how lucky he is, and then just stares in contemplation. Hanks is exceptional in this sequence, so tragic and agonising to watch as he pours so much passion into it. In contrast Washington doesn't actually utter a single word during the sequence. He just watches on, but Washington is able to convey his characters emotions and his change in outlook merely through his eyes. We see that something in him changes. The way that the scene is presented by Demme is also an important factor in creating the sheer power of it. The film briefly abandons its sense of reality as Andrew and his apartment are bathed in a dark red, operatic light while Demme employs high and tight camera angles to really immerse you in the moment and Andrew's suffering. It's a wonderful moment concerning the power of art and is just a truly wonderful piece of cinema. And such a more powerful scene than what you may typically find, some big moment of back and forth dialogue which reveals Joe's transition for example.
By presenting the story in the form that we are given we do know pretty much exactly where it is going. We know that at some point Washington's character is going to go through a revelatory experience which will force him to shed his prejudices towards gay people. We know the likely outcome of the case long before it has been decided by the jury. However the performances and the way that Demme handles the film ensures that it remains a very engaging, and occasionally enthralling film throughout. Even if some of the story and its messages are a bit obvious and on the nose; particularly guilty I felt was the ending which featured home movies of Andrew as a young boy, that just felt a little bit too manipulative. Oh and I was a touch disappointed in the fact that Beckett's relationship with Miguel (played by Antonio Banderas) wasn't really given much exposure; it felt like it was rather glossed over.
Conclusion - Philadelphia may not have been quite as powerful or confrontational as it could have been but I'd say that it marked an important step in portraying gay characters and issues with more depth and respect in major Hollywood films. And it does remain a very affecting and moving experience, largely down to two excellent lead performances, especially Hanks' exceptional turn as Andrew Beckett.