More than a decade after AIDS was first noticed as a
sickness, “Philadelphia” is the first time Hollywood has been the subject of a
big-budget film. Roger Ebert noted in his review, “No points for timeliness
here; made-for-TV docudramas and the independent film "Longtime
Companion" have already explored the subject, and "Philadelphia"
breaks no new dramatic ground.” Instead, it depends on the safe formula of the courtroom
drama to add suspense and resolution to a story that, when you look at it, should
have little suspense and only one possible outcome.
However, “Philadelphia” is a very good film, in its
own way. For movie fans with a hatred to AIDS but an enthusiasm for actors like
Tom Hanks and Denzel Washington, it may help widen the understanding of the condition.
Ebert said, “It's a ground-breaker like "Guess Who's Coming to
Dinner" (1967), the first major film about an interracial romance; it uses
the chemistry of popular stars in a reliable genre to sidestep what looks like
controversy.”
The story is about Hanks playing Andrew Beckett, a
great lawyer in a big, old-line Philadelphia law firm. We find out before the
law firm that Beckett has AIDS. A part of his day is him visiting the clinic. Ebert
mentioned, “Charles Wheeler, the senior partner (Jason Robards) hands Beckett a
case involving the firm's most important client, and then, a few days later,
another lawyer notices on Beckett's forehead the telltale lesions of the skin
cancer associated with AIDS.”
Beckett is pulled from the case and his told that he
doesn’t have a future with the firm. He thinks he’s being fired for having
AIDS.
He’s right. (Wheeler, feeling somehow contagious by
his firm, “He brought AIDS into our offices – into our men’s room!”) Beckett
wants to take a stand, and sue the law firm. However, his old firm is so
powerful that no attorney in Philadelphia wants to defend him, until Beckett
finally goes in desperation to Joe Miller, played by Denzel Washington, one of
those lawyers who advertises on TV, promising to save your driver’s license.
Miller has homophobia, but agrees to take the case,
mostly for the money and exposure. Now the story falls into the usual areas of
a courtroom fight, with Mary Steenburgen playing the counsel for the old firm.
(Her character has no desire for what is obviously a fraudulent defense, and
whispers “I hate this case!” to a member of her team.) The screenplay by Ron
Nyswaner works slightly to avoid the standard cliches of the courtroom. Even as
the case is progressing, the film’s center of attention changes from the trial
to the progress of Beckett’s condition, and we briefly meet his boyfriend
(Antonio Banderas) and his family, most notably his mother (Joanne Woodward),
whose role is small but gives two of the most powerful moments in the film. By
the time the trial reaches the verdict, the predictable result is mostly a counterpoint
for the movie’s real ending.
The film was directed by Jonathan Demme, who with
Nyswaner finds original ways to deal with some of the inevitable developments
of their story. Ebert said, “For example, it's obvious that at some point the
scales will fall from the eyes of the Washington character, and he'll realize
that his prejudices against homosexuals are wrong; he'll be able to see the
Hanks character as a fellow human worthy of affection and respect. Such changes
of heart are obligatory (see, for example, Spencer Tracy's acceptance of Sidney
Poitier in "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner").”
Ebert continued, “But "Philadelphia" doesn't
handle that transitional scene with lame dialogue or soppy extrusions of
sincerity. Instead, in a brilliant and original scene, Hanks plays an aria from
his favorite opera, one he identifies with in his dying state.” Washington isn’t
an opera fan, but as the music plays and Hanks talks over it, passionately
explaining it, Washington goes through a conversion of the soul. Finally, he
sees a man who loves life and does not want to leave it. Then the film cuts to
Washington’s home, late at night, as he looks sleeplessly into the dark, and we
can get an idea of what he is feeling.
Scenes like that are not only wonderful, but frustrating,
because they suggest what the whole movie could have been like if the filmmakers
had taken a real chance. Ebert said, “But then the film might not have been
made at all; the reassuring rhythms of the courtroom drama, I imagine, are what
made this material palatable to the executives in charge of signing the checks.”
“Philadelphia” is a good movie, and sometimes more
than that, and Hanks’ performance (which, after all, really exists outside the
plot) was one of the best of that year. Eventually, Hollywood had to discuss
one of the most important subjects of that time, and with “Philadelphia” that
opportunity was taken.
There have been other films that have considered the
topic more seriously. This was a good first step.
You should see this movie if you haven’t seen it yet.
It’s one of the best movies ever made. Tom Hanks says that he remembers in the
first transfusion scene he had met someone who worked in a noodle factory. Hanks
spoke with him and the man said that he was always working there, even when he
was on his oxygen tank, he’s wheel it into work. Hanks got emotionally talking
about this since 53 AIDS patient were in that scene, and 43 had passed. This is
now a hard movie for Hanks to watch because he remembers the guy from the
noodle factory, and notes that these movies last forever.
What I also love is how Denzel says the lines to other
lawyers and judges to explain it to him like he’s a little kid, whether it be
the age of four or six. I have used that line before once and I hope that it
was proven effective. Like I already mentioned, this is a powerful movie that I
think all of you should watch and see it because it is that good.
Look out next week when we look at another amazing
film in “Denzel Washington Month.”
No comments:
Post a Comment