DIRECTOR: Jonathan Demme
CAST:
Tom Hanks, Denzel Washington, Antonio Banderas, Jason Robards, Joanne Woodward, Mary Steenburgen, Charles Napier, Daniel von Bargen
REVIEW:
AIDS (Auto Immune Deficiency Syndrome) emerged as a major crisis in the early 80s but was largely ignored into the beginning of the 90s in the United States even though the US had more cases than any other nation. Educational programs were well underway in Europe, but US politicians gave it low priority, and President Ronald Reagan did not mention it in a speech until 1987. By that time there were 51,000 cases in 113 countries. Reagan's administration resisted congressional efforts and the crusading of Surgeon General C. Everett Koop to increase funds for AIDS research and prevention. To many Americans, AIDS was a "gay disease" and was not considered a subject for polite conversation due to its (exaggerated) association with homosexuality. Media treatment focused on the relatively few heterosexuals who had contracted the disease through blood transfusions. This partially changed in 1985, when archetypal Hollywood leading man Rock Hudson announced that he was gay and dying of AIDS. Hudson died in October of that year, leaving $250,000 to an AIDS research foundation, and while the revelation that a popular celebrity was infected prompted more coverage of the shamefully ignored plight of thousands of infected homosexuals, many Americans continued to inaccurately view AIDS as a disease which only pertained to homosexuals, who were largely viewed with indifference or even considered to "deserve it". Despite its status as the worst epidemic of modern times, it was the subject of extraordinary ignorance and fear, with infected individuals ostracized and even attacked by others who believed incorrectly that you could contract it through casual contact. The epidemic peaked in 1993, the same year of a second step forward in AIDS awareness, director Jonathan Demme's (The Silence of the Lambs, Beloved) flawed but courageous and socially important drama Philadelphia.
The central character of Philadelphia is Andy Beckett (Tom Hanks in his first Oscar-winning role), a hot-shot young lawyer looked upon by his boss Charles Wheeler (Jason Robards) almost as a son. Though we don't find out immediately- and neither do his colleagues and superiors- Andy is both gay and infected with AIDS. At first he tries to cover the legions appearing on his face with heavy makeup, but as his condition worsens he loses weight, becomes pale, and the legions grow impossible to conceal. Eventually he is fired, ostensibly because his quality of work has deteriorated, but Andy suspects- with justice- that the actual reason for his termination is a combination of homophobia and dread of AIDS. After being turned down by multiple attorneys, he turns to homophobic, conservative acquiantance Joe Miller (Denzel Washington), an ambulance chasing opportunist who despises homosexuals and is terrified of AIDS but decides to take the case for publicity. Predictably, he gradually comes to view Andy not as a "fag", or the walking embodiment of a horrendous disease, but as a kind man and a fellow human being who is worthy of respect.
Philadelphia is a flawed production which doesn't quite do its subject justice, but I cannot question that, with its heavy focus on both homosexuality and AIDS, it was a landmark film which in retrospect probably went about as far as audiences would have accepted back in 1993. While Andy is the main character, Joe is the representative of everyone in the audience with anti-gay feelings and/or ignorance about AIDS, and hopefully, like him, some of them came to at least spend a few minutes reflecting on their own beliefs.
However, while well-acted and competently-made, Philadelphia starts out strongly and disappointingly dissolves into only a mediocre film with a few striking moments along the way. The opening sequence of events dealing with Andy's worsening condition and increasingly hopeless attempts to hide it from his bosses are very good and bring home the pain both of being infected and of having to conceal it. Unfortunately, the filmmakers seem to feel the need to pull back the reins and veer off into a conventional and largely dull courtroom drama to avoid offending the sensitivities of an audience not accustomed to a character's homosexuality and AIDS infection being treated so forthrightly. The trial is only sporadically interesting, and there too many scenes which ring false. Robards' and Washington's homophobic rants near the beginning of the film sound forced and obviously scripted, like they're reading straight out of some stereotypical anti-gay propaganda pamphlet. Andy's family, principally represented by his mother (Joanne Woodward) is unanimously 100% supportive, with no hint of any conflicting feelings. Of course there are plenty of such families, but a little tension might have added a little more complexity and reflected the reality for many, if not all, gay and/or AIDS infected individuals. Andy and his lover Miguel (Antonio Banderas) are apparently long-time partners (Andy contracted AIDS from a fling with another man), but the movie shies away from showing any substantial affection between them; they share one blink-and-you'll-miss-it peck, filmed from the back of Hanks' head, with the result that their obviously significant relationship is skirted around to the point where Miguel could almost be Andy's best friend or devoted caretaker instead of, essentially, his husband.
Tom Hanks won his first Oscar for his performance as Andy Beckett (his second was a year later for Forrest Gump, making he and Spencer Tracy the only two actors to win Oscars two years in a row back-t-back), and he is always watchable, but the flaws of the movie sometimes undercut his effectiveness. Already skinny at the time, Hanks lost over thirty pounds for the role, and the convincing makeup job makes him a painfully believable AIDS sufferer. Considering the largely taboo subjects both homosexuality and AIDS were at the time, it took some guts for Hanks to play both a gay man and an AIDS victim, and that is not diminished by the flaws of the film. Washington also never really acts poorly, but the he is also reduced by the weakness of some scenes. Neither of their substantial acting talents can save the movie's most overwrought and unintentionally just bizarre scene, ironically the one most often pointed to when speaking of the greatness of Hanks' performance. It is the famous "opera scene", in which opera fanatic Andy feverishly translates a blaring opera to a silent Joe. In interviews, Hanks seems to think the scene is a metaphor for a gay man and a straight man, or any other individuals with real or perceived differences to find a common ground that transcends sexual orientation or race or what-have-you, but I don't the message comes across coherently. The scene seems to go on forever without an apparent point, and in the end it only makes Andy seem a little odd, probably not what the filmmakers were going for. Hanks is at his best in a courtroom scene where his passion for the law and initial admiration of Charles leads his ex-boss to feel a twinge of guilt, and Washington is more effective when he realizes- to his horror- that his defense of a gay man has led other people to assume he is gay himself, and in a scene in a library when he sees Andy being discriminated against and guiltily tries to pretend he doesn't. This is also perhaps Hanks' most memorable moment, as the librarian asks him if he would be more comfortable in a private room, and Hanks replies, "no, but would it make you more comfortable?". This is Philadelphia when it hits the mark, striking a blow for social justice and for treating people- all people- with dignity and respect. If Philadelphia had focused on little moments like this, which have the ring of truth, instead of the generic and sometimes melodramatic courtroom goings-on, it could have been a far stronger film.
Unfortunately, while Hanks and Washington are at least adequate and often more than adequate, no one else really stands-out, but that's usually because they aren't given a chance to. Robards doesn't recite his anti-gay ranting with any conviction. Banderas is given little to do besides gaze concernedly at Hanks. Woodward has a couple of strong scenes, especially towards the end, but both she and Banderas' roles seem underwritten. Mary Steenburgen is given the barest hints of a personality and character as Robards' lawyer, and Daniel von Bargen and Charles Napier are the jury foreman and the judge.
While too dragged-out and watered-down, Philadelphia does hit a strong note on occasion. Perhaps the most penetrating moment comes when Andy raises his shirt to reveal lesions covering his chest and stomach (this was not Hanks' chest, it was the chest of an actual AIDS victim). Approximately fifty AIDS sufferers appeared in small roles throughout the film. By the next year, forty of them were dead. Hanks turned his Oscar acceptance speech into an impassioned call both for gay rights, praising his gay high school drama teacher (Hanks doled out a chunk of his own money toward an auditorium dedicated to his old teacher), and increased AIDS awareness. Philadelphia is an important step in that direction, and homophobia is a social problem that needs to be confronted by films instead of often encouraged by them, but another movie will hopefully come along which will send these messages more effectively. Ultimately, it is overrated and sometimes muddled and tedious, but if it made one more person care about AIDS or question their homophobia, it fulfilled its mission. Philadelphia is not a great movie, but more movies need to display its willingness to express a social conscience, even, and maybe especially, if it is not popular.
**1/2
Back to Jester's Movie Reviews