Philadelphia

This film by Jonathan Demme came ten years after the HIV-infection and AIDS became known to the public. The problems surrounding people's lack of knowledge concerning how this infection was transmitted caused a lot of problems, not least for the infected of course.

As having worked (me Gunnar) with drug addicts and homeless people and also within a HIV- and infection ward at a Swedish hospital (the only ward in the world having the right to exercise custodial care), I've met people and heard their stories around the initial reactions during the 1980's and -90's.
A nurse once told me that after having had a patient with HIV in a room at a hospital, they even changed the curtains in the room, as they thought that HIV could be transmitted that way.
This film tells a story with these ingredients to some extent.
Andrew Beckett (Tom Hanks in one of his absolutely best roles) is working at a law firm, being very succesful as a lawyer.
All of a sudden his life is shattered by the fact that he becomes infected with HIV, after having lived in a more or less regular homosexual relationship with Miguel (Antonio Banderas), even though it doesn't seem as it's Miguel having transmitted this disease.
The law firm fires him when they become aware of him being infected.
The information has leaked from someone (in those days not Wikileak) as Andrew first decided to keep this information secret, well aware of that it would cause him problems.
When being thrown out on the street, who is going to help him?
The only one is the small time lawyer Joe Miller (Denzel Washington), a homophobic person, seeing the nuclear family - man, woman, child - as the only and 'natural' way of living.
Beckett and Miller had earlier in the film met concerning a case where they both stood on the opposite sides and where Beckett behaved very arrogant. Now he has to supplicate his adversary for his help!
When Beckett says hello, taking Miller's hand, we see how Miller reacts, after he becomes aware of what kind of problem Beckett has. He tries to wipe his hand clean. One can say that he both physically and symbolically washes his hands as he also refuses to take the case. Of course he changes his mind, as being a lawyer who mostly has been working with people being wrongly treated but mostly poor people.

Thematically this film was important during a period when HIV-infected people were treated like pariah and problems like these were common, that is to say, people being fired or ill-treated, transferred to other jobs or positions in a company and so forth.

On the same time, we are in this film dealing with a person, initially being rather well off and not having financial problems. This although one gets the impression he has lost everything he had, even economically. Maybe this is correct, if the idea is that the director wants us to believe that he has payed persons along the way to help him. The fact is though that he admits to Miller that he has not been able to convince anyone to represent him in court.
May it be as it is with that but we can also establish that he is a highly educated lawyer knowing his rights and therefore not being an underdog within the court system.
That is to say that even if the film takes on an important subject, the subject for this subject(!) is not a homeless, poor citizen, unfamiliar with the (il)legal system in a society.

This diminish the importance of this film in my (Gunnar's) opinion but on the same time one can always argue that displaying the fact(?) that a person in a rather favourable situation being quite well off, also could be subjected (the subjet returns) to such a treatment, could serve a purpose.

The acting is good but as so often with American films, it is a bit to stereotypical, the persons being to much staffage representing not individuals but moral standpoints and positions in society, making it somewhat 'Eisensteinskt' and yet not. This is not bad per se but it tends to alienate us from the individual suffering and hardship, which is not the case with Eisensteins films.

During a party in Becketts apartment, the homo-bi-and trans-sexuals are also very clichéd, representing only the extravagant part of this population, of course very interesting in itself but as a homosexual man once said to me: "Why is it always these extravagant homosexuals one see, the ones dressing up like noone dresses at at daily bases. Where are the other homosexuals, like me, wearing costume and living a rather 'normal' everyday life?".

The film is also made according to the standard procedure within American films, using some very common methods to appeal to the viewer, a little sentimentality, a musical score with strings etc etc. This sentimental string accelerates and reaches a climax in the end and this lowers the overall score of the film.



(Photo poster copied from: http://arcus.a.r.pic.centerblog.net/o/aa231c54.jpg)

(Photo Tom Hanks and Denzel Washington copied from: http://www.jestersreviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/philadelphia.jpg)

(Photo Denzel Washington copied from: https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEix3arSxHALCihjSJAJCou_UpikHBjCm4Q20OqQfeCGuTPcMS9p3OeFyqoZVf9h3rK0g8rTzm5-SJ1qX9WXhxE02aAHwaKREpl6m1im4Mzjh0TVtG5K4dLmpPuR6rw6wJZNet8vPg/s400/Denzel-Philly.jpg)

(Photo Tom Hanks copied from: http://www.gouts-doux.fr/images/films/film%20Philadelphia9.jpg)