Philadelphia (1993) * * *

Directed by: Jonathan Demme

Starring:  Tom Hanks, Denzel Washington, Jason Robards, Mary Steenburgen, Robert Ridgely


Philadelphia was the first mainstream Hollywood film to broach the subject of AIDS.    It is a fine film, although some of the scenes which reflected the attitudes of the time seem ludicrous today.    Watching it is like looking at a time capsule, although there are still people around who continue to hold the same ignorant views of homosexuals.     But I'm here to review the movie, not other people's prejudices.

Tom Hanks (Oscar winner for Best Actor for this role) stars as Andrew Beckett, a lawyer at a powerful, prestigious Philadelphia firm.   He is a brilliant, hard-working lawyer who suffers from AIDS, unbeknownst to his employers.    He visits clinics for treatment routinely, but his health begins to deteriorate and shows telltale Karposi's Sarcoma lesions on his forehead which are noticed by the senior partners.    Days after being assigned a case involving the firm's biggest client, he is fired from the firm.     He believes he was fired because it was discovered he had AIDS, although he has no luck finding legal representation.   

Beckett comes in desperation to attorney Joe Miller (Washington), who doesn't like homosexuals and is so misinformed about AIDS that he runs to his doctor after shaking Andrew's hand.    Miller is one of those lawyers seen on TV promising beaucoup bucks for personal injury claims and restoring your driver's license.    Miller initially turns down the case, but after seeing Andrew subtly mistreated in a public library, he agrees to represent him.    Philadelphia switches gears to a full-blown courtroom drama and these scenes are handled well, although I question the legal strategy of the defendants.

I can't imagine how the defense thinks it could possibly win the case.    In the opening remarks by the defense attorney (Steenburgen), she refers to Beckett's "reckless behavior and lifestyle choices which cut short his life."   Defense witnesses consistently say things like, "I have nothing but sympathy for those who contracted this terrible disease through no fault of their own."    Even 20 years ago, I would think the defense wouldn't be so blatant about their distaste for homosexuals.     Perhaps that is why as the trial progresses, Steenburgen remarks to her colleague, "I hate this case."
The firm's strategy is borderline stupid.  

Philadelphia, however, does hold up as documentation of the suffering of AIDS patients.    There have been a great many positive developments in AIDS treatment since the film was released.     The disease is still incurable, but medicine and science have improved the quality of life for those afflicted with HIV and AIDS.     Director Demme used numerous HIV patients in small roles and as extras in the film.    Here's a sobering statistic:  Nearly 75% of these patients used in the film died within one year after the film's release.    In 1993, AIDS was more of a death sentence than it is today.    Hanks is convincing and sympathetic, and his tour-de-force scene involves his interpretation of an aria he loves.   The music is thundering from his stereo system (remember those?) and at that point, Washington begins to understand Hanks as a human being and identifies with him.   

We know that Washington's point of view will eventually change because in movies like this it must.    He is up to the challenge in a strong role that reflected a great many people's fear of homosexuals and AIDS at the time.     Joanne Woodward, as Andrew's mother, supplies some powerful moments in non-verbal ways.    It's easy to sympathize with a mother who will be losing her son way, way too soon.    

Philadelphia was a safe, but intriguing first step in Hollywood's approach to the disease.     Anchored by strong performances and built-in suspense of a courtroom trial,  it was able to spread its message to the mainstream.     Watching it today, hearing lines like "Tutti fruttis make me sick too," draw unintentional laughs because of their ignorance, but things must be taken in context.    In 1993, such views were open.    However, when religious groups today spew their hatred for homosexuals under the guise of "God's law", I wonder how much evolution has transpired.