Philadelphia

Recently, I saw Jonathan Demme's film Philadelphia for the first time since I saw it when it was released.

Along with Tom Hanks' Oscar win for his role, it was proclaimed as a major progression in the recognition of the 'plight' of gay men, in particular with regard to AIDS. The truth is that it finally, and rather belatedly, reflected the acceptance of same by the masses.

I remember a fairly mild backlash since then, denouncing the film as a bit simplistic and patronising, with its 'Gays are people too' message, and I watched it carefully the other night, and I noticed a few things. The following day I searched the internet, and came across a few sites, one of which was this, a critique of the film.

As is often the case with overly academic film criticism, the author draws some conclusions that are seriously open to debate, and tosses out questionable statements as if they were as obvious as night following day. That said, there are a number of points on which I agree with him.

a) Denzel Washington's character (Miller) was an annoying gnat. As a lawyer, he's obviously an educated, middle-class man, yet at times speaks like a small-town boy who never got the experience of the big city lights, so to speak. When we see his homophobia for the first time, with his wife, he excuses himself on the grounds that he's 'old-fashioned' and 'conservative'. I've heard people defend their homophobia in this way before, and it's bollocks, not to mention offensive. Do we take it, then, that anyone over a certain age automatically operates this kind of dicrimination, or that the acceptance of gay men is 'radical' or 'progressive'? You might, if you weren't the brightest light on the christmas tree, but this is what is put forward. Then there is his wife, who instead of doing what most people would do (and especially most women, and most women with gay relatives), which is telling him to shut it, just laughs it off.

A similar train of thought is put forward later when Miller tells Beckett (Hanks) that When he was growing up, they were taught that gays were weird, gays were afraid to fight, gays were this, gays were that, etc. etc. At times like this, Miller represents the voice of the lowest common denominator, but it's not all that necessary.

Then there are the images of Miller at home with his wife, presented as they are directly after scenes of substantial interaction with Beckett, and could, if one was predisposed to paranoia, be interpreted as a sort of escape back to normality for him. Either that, or they show him up as rampantly insecure, especially when he lies next to his wife in bed after the scene where Beckett waxes lyrical during a section of an opera.

Finally - at least, this is as far as I'm going to go with him - there are the scenes in the courtroom, where his opening lines about how he shares with most people (!) the desire to keep gays and AIDS far away, and the especially toe-curling posturing about how attitudes to AIDS is determined by attitudes to gays just make you want to chuck him into an all-night BDSM club and lock the door.

b) Tom Hanks' character Beckett, and his relationship with Miguel (Antonio Banderas) are about as neutured as any representation of gays up on big screen. Did anyone see a single mouth-to-mouth kiss between them during the film? I didn't. Yet (again!) Miller is repeatedly shown with his arms wrapped around his wife. Demme really played it safe here, and there was without doubt room for improvement in this regard.

c) The characterisation of people as either rampantly homophobic or completely accepting was a more than a little simplistic. The part where Hanks is holding his baby nephew in his arms may as well have had 'HIS FAMILY LOVE AND ACCEPT HIM FOR WHO HE IS' writ large across the screen, and the senior lawyers on trial are almost ridiculous: These are men of the law, and should at least know better than to open themselves to potential lawsuits by making homophobic jokes in a sauna, where they could be overheard by anyone.

d) The eternal connection between promiscuity and AIDS. At this point in the essay, the author argues the following, with regard to when Beckett is cross-examined in connection with his visits to a porn theatre:

"The film presents this connection in a negative way, however, by putting it in the mouth of the defense. This leads audiences to believe that the connection between AIDS and gay sex is unwarranted..."

Perhaps it could be argued that this is true at some level, it certainly didn't strike me as such during either of the times I saw it, and I'm pretty sure most other people wouldn't see it that way either. What it most likely did was reinforce in a lot of people's minds that AIDS is some kind of retribution for promiscuity in the gay community ("Oh yeah, it's a shame about him, but he was always sleeping around blah blah blah"), which is interesting in and of itself, because while promiscuity amongst gay men often makes some squirm, promiscuity amongst heterosexual men is still tacitly celebrated.

So, Demme could have done better in some respects. The closing scene, though, showing a home movie of Beckett as a child, was very moving. I've always found that a powerful device in any kind of film, and I've flagged it with high importance.

One thing I've noticed in this essay is the barely concealed contempt for liberals - another term so overused it has also started to lose all meaning - something that is shared by many of the more militant activists in the gay community. I can appreciate that the earnestness sometimes hides something a little darker within the well-intentioned, but which is better: A gay basher, or someone who speaks out against it?

One thing that was missed (and I'm not making this up) was that in the movie poster, Hanks appears to have had some lipstick photoshopped onto his lips, and looks strangely androgynous. What's that about?

Have said all of the above, the film was aimed squarely at heterosexual middle America, and Demme included Springsteen on the soundtrack as a way of reaching people who wouldn't otherwise be aware of the film, or wouldn't consider going to see it. With that in mind, we can't expect all that much, and the film still serves some purpose in that respect.

One quote I leave you with though, which jumped out at me the minute I read it:

"In the post-Philadelphia imagination of the Screen Actors Guild, straight-identified actors will consider such characters as Beckett a prestigious opportunity to explore their histrionic expertise. But God forbid an openly gay actor and actress play Harry and Sally types. Then again, openly gay men and women are rare commodities in Hollywood."

Never a truer work spoken.