Tuesday, April 26, 2016

2016 Blind Spot Series: Philadelphia


Time for another entry in the 2016 Blind Spot entries, a challenge issued to us bloggers by Ryan @ The Matinee. This month I finally crossed off...


Why did I pick it? For starters, I'm a fan of this film's two stars: Tom Hanks and Denzel Washington. I've seen most of the work by both, why not this? Next, this is a movie that figured heavily in the Oscars the year it was released, marking it as a film of some significance. Hanks himself took home the first of his two Academy Awards for Best Actor. I also picked it because while it was a blind spot, it felt like it wasn't. Over the years, I've heard and read so much about this movie I thought I knew practically everything about how it plays out. On top of that, I did manage to see bits and pieces here and there during that time. Finally, I picked it because I bought the DVD five or six years ago, put it on the shelf, and never moved it except for the occasional dusting.

The story concerns Andrew Beckett (Hanks), a young hotshot lawyer quickly rising toward the top of the large firm he works for. In fact, we meet him just as he gets a promotion and is handed an extremely important case. Unbeknownst to them, he is also a homosexual and, more importantly, infected with AIDS. In short order, his physical condition deteriorates due to the disease. The case he's working on doesn't go as smoothly as hoped and he is fired. Andrew decides to sue the firm for unlawful termination, surmising that they found out he has AIDS and fired him because of it. After a lengthy and fruitless search for an attorney to represent him, Joe Miller (Washington) agrees to take his case.

Obviously, Philadelphia presents itself as a courtroom drama. As such we spend lots of time on examinations and cross-examinations. Honestly, I found this part of the movie the least compelling. A large part of that is because it felt like a slow march to a foregone conclusion. My own prior knowledge of the film might be partly to blame, but the film never seems to create sufficient doubt that the case will turn out exactly the way you think it will. A more troubling reason for this is that the lawyers on both sides are rather shabby. On the side of the firm, it's a faceless team who take turns speaking up and never say anything much. On our hero's side, Miller isn't much better and never really seems to prove his client's case because of how many questions he didn't ask. A number of these were questions I thought of and I have no training nor experience whatsoever when it comes to the law. Instead, we get a string of empty antics revolving around either asking someone if they're gay or calling them out for hating gay people. The outcome, as it turns out, is entirely dependent on the common sense of the jury. We learn this in just a minute or so of dialogue between them in a film that runs for two hours. This isn't the fault of the actors, it's a problem with the script. You shouldn't leave the film thinking you don't want any of these people representing you, which is precisely how I felt. Pardon me for being confused about how Ron Nyswaner getting an Oscar nom for Best Original Screenplay for this.


Nyswaner redeems himself somewhat because the movie outside the courtroom is far better. How AIDS affects Beckett, his partner Miguel (Antonio Banderas), and Beckett's entire family is touching and heart-breaking. This is especially true if you can put yourself in 1993 when being diagnosed with AIDS was a death sentence sure to be swiftly executed. We really get the sense that the people who love Beckett are not just looking at a man that's dying, but one they feel is already dead. There is no hope of beating the disease, or of anything ahead for him in life but pain and suffering before closing his eyes for the final time. As the center of this sadness, Hanks brings a quiet dignity to the role. He's a man who realizes he has a fight to fight, but also that he needs others to fight it for him. Beckett is resigned to his personal fate, but not to others wronging him.

How Miller views things is more important, even if less touching, than what's going on with Andrew and his family. Miller is a classic homophobe. He despises gay people and their lifestyle and only takes the case because he recognizes that a law was broken. Through his character and most of the other males in the film, we really feel the paranoia over AIDS that informed our collective attitude towards homosexuals. It was a genuine thing as, at that time, it was still seen as a disease that had its genesis in the gay community and only infected gay people. In '93, we were still learning about it and just starting to move away from the idea that you had to be gay to get it. Philadelphia captures all of this exceptionally well. As the face of this side of the equation, Denzel Washington is outstanding in his role. While it's true that the plot revolves around Hanks' character, it's Washington's that actually has an arc. He guides us through it without a lot of big, showy moments to declare that that's what is going on. Because of this, I actually think he gives the best performance in the film, not Hanks. It's also because Hanks doesn't really have a whole lot to do. He physically looks the part. He lost lots of weight and purposely thinned his hair to do so. Those are things The Academy loves. Other than that, and the brilliant opera scene, he only has to sit around and look sickly which was taken care of by his physical appearance. Hanks is excellent at it, but it's Washington who handles all the heavy lifting. Alas, Denzel was not nominated. I have seen two of Hanks' competitors in the Best Actor category this year, Laurence Fishburne (What's Love Got to Do With It) and Liam Neeson (Schindler's List). Hanks does nothing wrong, but I think either of those guys would have been a far better choice.

I am very pleased to have finally watched this all the way through. My misgivings with the courtroom portion of the film aside, it works as a time capsule of where we were as a society, how far we have come, and far we have to go. It's a heartfelt tale of someone being wronged and doing something about it. It's also about the fragility of life and trying to get as much out of it as possible. Finally, it's about a society in the midst of change and struggling with the growing pains that come along with that.


2016 Blind Spot Entries

2015 Blind Spot Entries

22 comments:

  1. I think this is amazing film and I agree with you on Denzel Washington's performance as I felt he had the more interesting part. Especially as it relates to his own development and what he would do for Tom Hanks' character.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. Washington's part was far more interesting since he's the one undergoing changes.

      Delete
  2. This Oscar race is not one I've looked at yet, but I'm inclined to agree with you that Denzel Washington deserved the nomination here. Of course, in the world of Oscar politics, it's possible that he would have been nominated in a supporting role, but he wasn't nominated there, either.

    As you say, he's the character with the arc. He's the one who comes to understand things differently, which makes him the most interesting thing on the screen. This is a case where hindsight shows us a lot--in 1993, playing a character with AIDS was risky and daring. Today, because of how far we have come in 20+ years, Washington not only plays the character who changes, but looks like the actor who took a much bigger risk. In 1993, a lot of people were where Washington's character starts the film. Today, a lot more of us are where he ends.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So true about the difference between 1993 and today. Hanks was lauded for his courage in playing such a role while Washington was a complete afterthought. Watching the film now, it almost feels completely opposite.

      Delete
  3. I can't believe I've never even heard of this movie! Great review, Dell :) I'm definitely going to have to watch this, I've never seen a Tom Hanks movie that I haven't enjoyed.
    - Allie

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh please do. Just be warned that this is definitely one of his heavier roles.

      Delete
  4. I enjoyed reading your take on this but I think the film is a pile of crap. Self important and didactic focusing on the lawyer's journey while purporting to be Hanks's struggle. Your right about the courtroom scenes, they're stiff and unreal wasting many excellent performers.

    One of the things that bugged me the most was the reaction of Hanks' family, it was just so unrealistic. I don't care how accepting a family is when you tell them that their lives as well as yours are going to be torn asunder there's going to be more of a reaction than them docilely sitting there saying we're behind you, and then the entire family excepting Banderas more or less vanishes. Huh? It was a big fault in the script in not exploring those issues.

    Both the leads were fine but I always felt I was watching performances not people, I don't think either was nomination worthy let alone that Hanks should have won. This pales in comparison to the other films that preceded it that looked at how AIDS impacted specific lives and the world at large, An Early Frost (1985), Longtime Companion (1989) and And the Band Played On which premiered on HBO the same year this hit theatres. All of them elicit far more emotional involvement and reaction than this dry study in dramatics.

    I hate to dump on it because its heart is obviously in the right place and as the first big studio offering, albeit 12 years after the epidemic started to spread like wildfire in the States, is to be commended but the execution and script are lacking.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No arguing that it is didactic and self important. That just didn't sink it for me.

      I actually didn't mind the family's reaction because you're bound to be more forgiving and open to someone you're literally watching die right in front of you. After that, they were dutifully in the courtroom, but not necessarily needed as part of the narrative. At least that's how I read it.

      I've seen parts of And the Band Played On when it came on, but don't really remember anything of it. Haven't even heard of the other two. I'll look those up.

      I will admit, it's not a great film, but as that first big studio offering about the epidemic it is of some importance. Because of that, I might be a bit more lenient than I normally would.

      Delete
    2. An Early Frost looks at the effect the revelation of the disease has on one family with the most amazing cast, it was a special presentation television event when it debuted, Gena Rowlands & Ben Gazzara are the parents, Sylvia Sidney the grandmother and Aidan Quinn, who was just starting out, as their son who has AIDS.

      Longtime Companion looks at how the disease effects and slowly disseminates a group of friends in the early 80's. The most recognizable names in it are Campbell Scott and Mary Louise Parker but most of the cast are familiar faces and do excellent work. Bruce Davison was nominated for Best Supporting Actor for his role in the film.

      Both are incredibly moving and I couldn't recommend them more but they're heavy duty heartbreakers.

      Delete
    3. I will look into both. Given the heavy subject matter I can't that I'm going to be in a rush to see either, though.

      Delete
  5. I've yet to watch this one, despite knowing a lot about it from hearsay. Someday lol. Great review!

    ReplyDelete
  6. I like this a lot. Denzel definitely does the heavier lifting - his character actually evolves as we watch, and he pulls that off without theatrics.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I've always been a great admirer of this film. You're right, it serves as a worthy time capsule for the issue of gay rights. Denzel, man.... he never got proper credit for his work in this film.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks. And yes, Denzel deserved much more praise for his work, here.

      Delete
  8. Always felt this was a really good and moving film. And I think Denzel's performance easily outshines Hanks', as good as that is. I absolutely loved how subdued and restrained Denzel's performance was in this, which is why it stands out so much too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Denzel definitely betters Hanks, here. Hanks has a couple standout moments, but doesn't actually have a whole lot to do while Washington has to carry the film. And he does a wonderful job.

      Delete
  9. A very powerful film. Especially that scene in the library. Great music too. Wasn't it stolen off a true story?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The library scene is a great one. It was inspired by a pair of true stories.

      Delete
  10. I love the way you described this as a time capsule of where we were as a society. I saw it years ago, but I don't remember much about it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is definitely that. In some parts of the world, we're still there. Sadly.

      Delete