Philadelphia (1993) - 8/10
City of brotherly love
Place I call home
Don’t turn your back on me
I don’t want to be alone
Love lasts forever
Someone is talking to me
Calling my name
Tell me I’m not to blame
I won’t be ashamed of love
Philadelphia
City of brotherly love
Brotherly love
5. Sound Design
I feel like this film never set out with the intention for music to play a huge role, but just happened into that being the case. Two original songs were composed for the film, with Philadelphia by Neil Young and Street of Philadelphia by Bruce Springstein getting nominated for multiple awards. Springstein in particular, took home a slew of music awards to include an Oscar for Best Original Song. Also, in both instances the director envisioned a much different tone than what would ultimately make the movie. Both Young and Springstein intended to make more upbeat rock tracks, but ultimately were inspired by the film to go in quieter and more solemn directions.
6. Editing
The film clocks in just over the 2 hour mark and has a nice pace to it the entire time. As I mentioned earlier, I think the swapping between court room and personal lives provides a nice balance for the film and still manages to keep everything coherent.
With that said, a lot of the early scenes have a time frame superimposed to establish the scene. One week later, a month later, 7 months later, 2 minutes later. It is constant early on and I don't really see the need for it. I think without even knowing the exact passage of time, the progression is clear to the audience from context clues. It became a bit distracting for me.
7. Visual Effects
Nothing to really not here.
8. Originality or Strength of Adaptation
It may not have been the first or best movie to tackle issues of gay rights or AIDS, but it was certainly the most commercial. While its commercial appeal may undermine some of strengths, the $206 million dollar box office return means that this film was able to hit a much larger audience than its peers and that was a major achievement socially.
9. Stunt Coordination
Not really a ton of stunts to talk about in a movie like this, but Andy collapsing in the court room did manage to feel quite visceral, which was the intent.
10. Direction
In interviews Jonathan Demme spoke about his desire to tackle this film. "Recalling a 1984 train ride when he overheard a fellow passenger reveal that he had AIDS, Demme admitted he was “terrified” and wanted to escape the confines of the compartment in flight from the infected individual. Philadelphia was meant to tap into this kind of response in other ill-informed people and offer a much more complex perspective on the medical, legal, and personal aspects of the disease." To this extent, the movie is quite successful. I also found that, even though the film may feel simple at times, Demme's focus on certain techniques such as closeups was a smart creative decision that helps elevate the film.
Legacy/Final Thoughts
I really mentioned a lot of my thoughts already. Not to be overly repitive, but Philadelphia is a culturally important film that chronicals gay rights and AIDS that is anchored by two powerhouse performances from all time greats. It may be pulling its punches at times, but its broad appeal is arguably a strength and why it was able to penetrate the zeitgest to capture a larger audience than a film like this would have otherwise gotten at this point in history. The fight for equity and justice for the LGBTQ+ community is sadly still ongoing, but hopefully movies like this continue to be made in order to expose audiences to prejudices and issues they would otherwise not routinely see.
Judge Garrett: In this courtroom, Mr.Miller, justice is blind to matters of race, creed, color, religion, and sexual orientation.
Joe Miller: With all due respect, your honor, we don't live in this courtroom, do we?
1. Acting
A popular conversation among both casual movie fans and cinephiles alike (and one I've personally had many times) is: Who is the greatest actor? The directions this argument can go are numerous. Some people focus on the number of awards or the number of excellent movies an actor has appeared in. Others focus on bankability and status as a bona fide "movie star." But no matter the direction the conversation takes, two of the most frequently mentioned names are Denzel Washington and Tom Hanks. Both stars have appeared in numerous films that could be considered masterpieces, and both are undeniably talented. The only downside of actors having such strong reputations is that most films don't leave room for multiple stars to receive equal billing. Luckily, every once in a while, we get a film like this, where we can watch two masters of their craft bounce off each other for two hours.
Denzel Washington is a compelling actor. It's hard to pinpoint exactly what he does that is so effective, but he has a presence that makes his characters fascinating. Here, he plays a character with an intriguing inner conflict. Joe Miller is clearly a talented and intelligent attorney. He is also a Black man specializing in personal injury law, meaning he often defends disadvantaged people against powerful or systemic harm. At the same time, he is prejudiced against homosexuals, a fact he repeatedly states or displays. This dichotomy and inner turmoil make up the bulk of Joe's character arc and define a large part of his relationship with Andy. Washington's approach seems simple: just play him earnestly. Joe represents the majority of people at that time, and Washington keeps him grounded as a normal man in a personally uncomfortable situation. Beyond that, Washington brings his top-notch instincts to key moments, knowing exactly when to turn on the charm or heighten his intensity.
For his part, Tom Hanks in the 1990s was an absolute force. Almost every year, he starred in films that became instant classics, and Philadelphia arguably marked the start of that run. In this film, his character Andrew Beckett showcases Hanks' range. Early on, Andy is portrayed as an accomplished, somewhat egotistical lawyer rising through the ranks at his law firm. But as his medical issues worsen, we see him spiral slowly and painfully. We also witness Andy's gradual realization that his time is finite, with the end approaching sooner than he admits to himself. Hanks treads carefully—if he acts too sick or scared early on, he runs out of room to show Andy's decline. But if he is too subtle, the gravity of the situation won't connect with the audience. It’s a tightrope, and Hanks navigates it deftly.
The rest of the cast complements the two leads, though there isn’t a ton of screen time for anyone. Antonio Banderas gives a solid supporting performance as Andy's partner, and Joanne Woodward, as Andy's mother, delivers nuanced work, especially through facial expressions that are often devastating to watch.
2. Cinematography
On the surface, there isn’t anything particularly fancy about the cinematography, which is fitting given its courtroom/personal drama setting. However, there is a clear emphasis on close-ups and centered framing of the characters. Close-ups are a classic tool in any director or cinematographer’s toolkit, and here they serve to invoke empathy. Much of human communication happens through facial expressions. By stripping away extraneous details and focusing on microexpressions, the audience is forced to register the characters’ emotions. For a film with this subject matter, empathy is the point. We need to strip away distractions to see each other’s humanity.
3. Production/Costume Design
Nothing in particular stands out dramatically in the sets or costumes. The most notable contribution is from the makeup team, who worked extensively with Hanks to make his disease progression look realistic. Hanks himself contributed significantly by losing noticeable weight during filming to accurately portray Andy's battle with AIDS.
4. Writing
I'll just get something out of the way quick - this is a safe script.
It is important script. But it is also safe. I mean this mostly in
regards to Andy as he is curated to not be particularly gay. Now, gay
people are obviously not a monolith and there are certainly gay people
that may be exactly like Andy. The only reason I mention it here, is
that the film is attempting to be broadly appealing to as big of an
audience as possible in order to spread its necessary message. That is
arguably a good thing with a good intentions. At the same time, in a
landmark film about gay rights and equality, the main character often
hardly seems gay, or have any really intimacy between him and his
partner. The film also favors the courtroom drama more than Andy's
battle with AIDS. Almost as if it was more palatable to sell this as a
story about legalities, than it is about the uncomfortable and deadly
disease that ravaged the gay community.
In learning a bit more about the film I came across two quotes from gay activist and playwright Larry Kramer that sum it up well. First in his essay titled Why I Hated Philadelphia, he remarked “It’s dishonest, it’s often legally, medically and politically inaccurate, and it breaks my heart that I must say it’s simply not good enough and I’d rather people not see it at all.” Later in a separate piece, Kramer softened a bit on his stance, saying “I never thought I’d say this, but I guess Philadelphia did some good after all.”
Despite my criticisms I, similar to Kramer, see the merits of Philadelphia - especially when considered in context. At this point in history, a lot of the proceeding of Philadelphia feel quite quaint - a reductive reflection of how backwards society was in regards to homosexuality and the indifferent reaction to the AIDS crisis. On the other hand, these issues and prejudices linger today (may be even strengthening again). So, having a film like this, at the time of its release, was a leap forward. Not as big of a leap as some wanted. But a leap nonetheless.
As for the actual screenplay, the film is well constructed. Andy's story is based on real life case of Geoffrey Bowers, an attorney who faced wrongful termination from his law firm due to his HIV status. The
selection of this story works on a few levels which is why I think they
pursued it. It as much a legal story of the fight for equality under
the law, as it is a human story of battling prejudices and disease. In
other words, they used the framework of a legal story in order to tell a
human story that challenges the audience to face their own prejudices,
educate them on a disease, and elicit empathy that society had long been
lacking. In this regard, I don't think it was happenstance that the
jury, apart from one quick deliberation scene, is left unnamed and quiet
the entire film. The legal battle between Denzel Washington and Mary
Steenburgen's characters isn't for the jury, its for the movie
audience. 
In regards to the plot, everything is framed in an easy to follow narrative. The film doesn't get overly bogged down in jargon or nuances of the law. Rather it does it best to simplify things and keep the film moving. That may mean that the exposition is a bit on the nose at times, but it still manages to be effective and compelling. I also like the balance of the plot. We don't get overly bogged down on prolonged court proceedings and we get frequent respites that take a look into Andy and Joe's personal lives. The slow progression of unspoken friendship is also nicely done and I think are meant to mirror Joe's reluctant growth.
Overall, while this may not be the strongest or boldest script to wade into this subject matter, it is a highly effective and efficient one. So whatever faults it may have, I think the messaging is so vital (especially for that time) that we can gladly look past them.
5. Sound Design
I feel like this film never set out with the intention for music to play a huge role, but just 'happened into' that being the case. In particular, two original songs—Philadelphia by Neil Young and Streets of Philadelphia by Bruce Springsteen—earned multiple award nominations, with Springsteen winning an Oscar for Best Original Song. Ironically, the director originally envisioned more upbeat tracks or rock inspired tracks, but the film inspired Young and Springstein to take quieter, more solemn directions.
6. Editing
The film runs just over two hours with a consistent, steady pace. The alternation between courtroom scenes and personal lives provides a coherent balance.
With that said, a lot of the early scenes have a time frame superimposed to establish the scene. One week later, a month later, 7 months later, 2 minutes later. It is constant early on and I don't really see the need for it. I think without even knowing the exact passage of time, the progression is clear to the audience from context clues. It became a bit distracting for me.
7. Visual Effects
Nothing noteworthy.
8. Originality or Strength of Adaptation
While not the first or best film to tackle gay rights or AIDS, it was the most commercially successful. Its $206 million box office shows that it reached a far larger audience than similar films, which was a major social achievement.
9. Stunt Coordination
Few stunts are required, but Andy collapsing in the courtroom feels visceral, achieving its intended effect.
10. Direction
Jonathan Demme spoke about his desire to tackle the film: "Recalling a 1984 train ride when he overheard a fellow passenger reveal he had AIDS, Demme admitted he was 'terrified' and wanted to escape. Philadelphia was meant to tap into this kind of response in other ill-informed people and offer a more complex perspective on the medical, legal, and personal aspects of the disease." In this regard, the film succeeds in its aim and Demme’s creative choices, such as close-ups, helps elevates the material.
Legacy/Final Thoughts
Philadelphia is a culturally important film chronicling gay rights and AIDS, anchored by two powerhouse performances. While it may hold back at times, its broad appeal helped it reach audiences widely. The fight for LGBTQ+ equity and justice continues, but films like this remain vital in exposing audiences to prejudices and issues they might otherwise overlook.
Judge Garrett: “In this courtroom, Mr. Miller, justice is blind to matters of race, creed, color, religion, and sexual orientation.”
Joe Miller: “With all due respect, Your Honor, we don't live in this courtroom, do we?”
Comments
Post a Comment