Table of Contents
Introduction
The following paper is a critical contextual review of the film Philadelphia. The film Philadelphia was produced and aired ten years after the declaration of AIDS as an incurable disease. This movie was among pioneer films to feature undermined social issues such as AIDS and homosexuality and the discrimination associated with them. The storyline was based on true stories of two different and highly competent attorneys who were discriminatively edged out of employment when their employers realized they had contacted HIV/AIDS and that they were also homosexuals. This review will seek to answer questions such as who is being addressed, what ideas, beliefs and values are present or absent, whose voices receive attention, whose interest are served, how are audiences influenced, what stereotypes are encouraged or challenged and what values are privileged. This review will incorporate both artistic review as well as a discussion of the political, social and medical knowledge base of the producer and the audience while integrating HIV/AIDS context into the discussion.
-
0
Preparing Orders
-
0
Active Writers
-
0%
Positive Feedback
-
0
Support Agents
Who Is Being Addressed and How Is the Audience Influenced?
The audience of this film is the general public, the legislators and employers. The storyline revolves around the main character Andrew Beckett. Andrew is a brilliant lawyer at one of the best law firms in the city. He wins many cases and celebrates when his law firm receives even bigger accounts. What his colleges do not know at first is that Andrew is already diagnosed with AIDS. This is not the only secret that Andrew is hiding from his colleagues. He is also a homosexual, in a city where such tendency is not only a taboo but also is not allowed by the society. However, news of his ailment becomes public knowledge at the office when a Kaposi Sarcoma lesion appears on his forehead. Although he attributes the lesion to a ball injury, one of his colleagues had a previous encounter with an AIDS patient so he informs Andrew’s bosses of his predicament. Shortly after, he is laid off on grounds of incompetence and he sues his employers for discrimination in court. At this juncture, the film tries to address employers on the senselessness of discriminating AIDS victims since they are not only competent at their work, but are only humans as the rest of the employees (Capozzola, 2002). Prior to the discovery of the lesion, Andrew’s colleagues used to freely associate with him but afterwards they are seen to shun him. During the release of this film, facts about HIV/AIDS such as modes of transfer were not clearly known. The film helps to educate the society regarding these issues by demonstrating the audience that association with patients does not transfer the disease. The legislators and law-makers are also addressed in this film. The jury in the case against Andrew’s employer rules in favor of Andrew and the judge order for his full compensation. This ruling is reached against claims by the employer that Andrew had contracted the disease due to his sexuality. The jury agrees that the employer broke the law for dismissing Andrew on bases of AIDS and homosexuality. They agreed that homosexuality was a social status as any other and AIDS was a non-contagious disease as any other and they do not warrant a dismissal. However in this regard, the film can be criticized as taking a totally different route from the main agenda. The lawsuit and the court episode take the center stage and prolongs for a very long time such that it does not leave enough time to focus on Andrew’s suffering. This is because shortly after the court ruling, Andrew dies and the film comes to a premature end (Hart, 2007).
Whose Voices Receive Attention and Who’s Interests Are Served?
The film Philadelphia ironically suppresses the voice that it had intended to represent at first. For instance, Andrew is presented as a brilliant lawyer who represents and wins cases for the firm’s biggest clients prior to dismissal. However, he receives a less competent lawyer, Joe Miller, to represent him in court in the suit against his employers for illegal dismissal. Joe turns Andrew down and Andrew desperately asks for representation from other lawyers who also turn him down. Joe only agrees to represents Andrew out of sympathy when he meets him at the library where he is trying to gather information for his case. The desperation of Andrew to get a lawyer to defend him puts him in the AIDS corner where he is seen as weak and less competent. This should not be the case as he is already a great lawyer. This ironically depicted AIDS victims as less human being who needed the assistance and mercy of ‘normal’ beings for them to survive. It can also be argued that Andrew’s fainting in court had a contribution to the jury’s decision. Andrew fainted in court and was taken to the hospital after both sides of the case had presented their arguments. The jury decides in Andrew’s absence that his employer had broken the law by sucking him on the bases of his health condition. Although this maybe what ensued in the true story, the producer could have added a twist by showing a healthy Andrew celebrating the victory in court. He could also have added a scene of after the court and show Andrew moving on and enjoying his life until later when death catches on. The homosexuality voice is also ironically suppressed in this film (Hart, 2014). Apart from the mention that Andrew was homosexual, he is mainly seen as a lonely man who fights the stigma alone. During the difficult moments when he stays away from the office, his boyfriend is never seen there to comfort and encourage him. The subject of homosexuality is actually swept under the carpet in this film. The producer only states the issue but fails to fully tackle the matter. This might be due to fear of critics since this was not an easy subject at the time of production of the film (Albuquerque, 2004). The voices of homosexuals and AIDS victims are almost ignored by the film that was out to represent them. The opening speech by Joe sounds similar to Martin Luther’s speech of freedom. This coupled with the fact that Joe was an African American character may have swayed the attention from AIDS and homophobia to freedom from racial discrimination. The scene presents Joe as a brilliant character who wins the case for his client and totally takes the attention from the client who was the intended for the center stage. Thus, it can be critically argued that the voices against racial discrimination receives more attention that the voices of homosexuals and AIDS victims. Joe is seen as the hero who overcomes the fear of AIDS by seeking professional advice from doctors. He comes to the rescue of the miserable Andrew who cannot even stand for himself in the library when he is being pushed to a lone room by the librarian. Due to shame and fear of standing for himself, Andrew resigns to the secluded room to do his research on AIDS and the legal aspects. Joe agrees to take his case and relieves him the pain of sitting alone at the library doing research. He father goes on to give a powerful representation in court and wins the case. This over could have taken the spotlight from the focus of the film for far too long and could have led to misinterpretation of the context (Crimp & Rolston, 1990).
Ideas, Values, Beliefs and Stereotypes
The main stereotype addressed in this film is the misconception about AIDS. Andrew’s colleague shouts in the office that Andrew had brought AIDS to their office and men’s room. This is after many years of associating freely with Andrew without knowing that he was suffering from AIDS. Immediately they find out they alarmingly revolve against sharing any personal space with him again. Joe on the other hand rushes to the doctor with fear that he has been infected by Andrew when they first met. The doctor puts away his fears by explaining to him the methods of AIDS transmission. He explains that shaking his hand and associating with Andrew would not infect him. Joe gathers courage and finally represents Andrew in court. Joe enjoys spending time with Andrew at the opera and at one point he stays up all night empathizing Andrew. This change of heart by Joe helps to address stereotypes associated with AIDS to the audience. The film Philadelphia was created during the time of homophobia and mysophobia. The ideas of the film were to break the talk on AIDS and homosexuality in government and society. Around the time of production, more than four hundred thousand American citizens had died of AIDS yet the government and the society was still silent on the issue. Individuals in government and the general society were adamant to speak about AIDS and homosexuality. Philadelphia thus introduced the debate on AIDS and homosexuality and helped to address their misconceptions, stereotypes and the discrimination against victims of AIDS and also homosexuals. Belief of that time was that AIDS was contracted by homosexuals. The firm’s representative in court argues before the jury that Andrew had contracted HIV/AIDS out of his free will to engage in homosexuality. This argument was countered by Andrew’s lawyer who brought in professional information from medical field, which pointed that anyone can contract the disease regardless of their sexual orientation (Yep, 2007).
Save up to
25%!
We offer 10% more words per page than other websites, so actually you got 1 FREE page with every 10 ordered pages.
Together with 15% first order discount you get 25% OFF!
Conclusion
Philadelphia is a film that was among other pioneer Hollywood films to address HIV/AIDS and homosexuality. It was produced at a time when despite death of many citizens from AIDS the government was still adamant to talk about it. The film-makers took big risks and opened the talk of HIV/AIDS in the society. Prior to this, the society openly discriminated against victims of this illness and employers discriminated against them to the point of forcefully laying them off. This film addressed misguided beliefs associated with AIDS such as one that argued that only homosexuals could contract the disease. Stereotypes such as the fear to share common space with people diagnosed with the disease as one could become infected were also demystified. Andrew’s lawyer, family and friends associate with him until the last minutes of his death yet they do not catch AIDS as a result. However, the film may have unintentionally shifted its focus from the main agenda. The introduction of Joe as an underdog lawyer who fights stereotype and a strong law firm to clinch victory for his client may have resulted into him being the focus of the film. His opening speech, which largely borrowed from the popular freedom speech may have implied that the film was addressing racial discrimination as he completely stole the spotlight from the AIDS and homosexual victim.