Login
Notable drama from director Jonathan Demme ("The Silence of the Lambs") which tells the story of a young lawyer prestigious and is fired when contracting AIDS, but the reasons do not seem entirely clear.
The story and the script itself are somewhat gullible, but with the help of a great director like Demme and two actorazos such as Denzel Washington and Tom Hanks (the latter is moving, without doubt one of the best performances in the history of film) is achieved an emotional and overwhelming drama that has us on edge for the entire tape.
Got two Oscars in 1993: Best Actor for Tom Hanks (something unprecedented for being a homosexual role) and best song for the splendid "Streets of Philadelphia" by Bruce Springsteen.
Philadelphia is an honest story about one of those topics that the USA does not like commercial cinema. It is noteworthy that in the approach avoids the sordidness or morbid, noting how the disease affects the human and social aspect, especially resulting rejection of ignorance, and with particular emphasis on the struggle for dignity.
Tom Hanks, great actor though prototype of political correctness, risks in a difficult role, and does a masterful performance in reaching the remembered sequence shudder La mamma morta ringing voice of Maria Callas with all its grandeur and passion, as the camera enters inside a wounded soul.
The bottom line: the balanced yet forceful staging of such a sensitive issue like AIDS. Moreover at the time, even more so in a homosexual. And the fact that it is a film with big stars, produced by a major studio is very important when addressing a message of complaint to the discrimination suffered by so many people suffering from the virus. Because at the end of the day, if the film is a little gem but not seen by almost no one reporting that work is paralyzed despite its artistic merits. In my opinion, the main value of Philadelphia is put on the table, the retinas enfente the general public so delicate topic. And do it with a commercial film, yes, but also quality. Now, do you really cinema, art in general, has the ability to raise awareness, to make it move for what they believe just after viewing a work? Regrettably I doubt it. A particular work may help a minority made aware about a certain subject, and that is an achievement, but make no mistake, never move masses. Even so, I think in this case provide visibility than hitherto lacked the subject seems worthy of admiration. Recently published statements by the Archbishop of Brussels, head of the Church in Belgium, claiming that AIDS is an act of "justice". When even arise from time to time reviews as this it is clear that we have not advanced much in the issue of the acceptance of the disease. Not to mention the great work that the Catholic Church does encourage the pandemic in Africa. I'm a demagogue and I will burn in hell for atheist and Freemason, but not the issue.
I said before that Philadelphia is a typical Hollywood film scores. And it is. But as in the typical westerns, comedies or typical, in this case also there are good or bad. And I think Philadelphia is closer to the former. Despite its flaws. It would have appreciated a greater risk in the formal. That also would have avoided an underscore constant ideas involved and captures the viewer and so insistently without: the rejection of the sick, homophobia recalcitrant
Thirty years ago no one knew what AIDS was. Disease even had that name. In the eighties, everything changed ... a new disease came to light. Homosexuals, sure to have fewer problems than heterosexual safe sex, were the first humans who were massively disease diagnosis. They soon discovered that the disease was actually a virus that is transmitted by blood and attacking both heterosexuals and homosexuals. In fact its impact on communities of drug users who shared needles was very high. However, due to social conditioning and propaganda of the time, the disease was known long pink like the plague. Many of these prejudices still remain today.
Knowing all this, we have to move now to the nineties to objectively judge this film. At that time AIDS was still in his early years of study. Their mortality was high. And being a person with the disease will automatically crossed out of society, making the infected nearly died in life. To underline this discrimination at the beginning of the decade to tolerate homosexuals are much less than now. And if it was found that in addition to being sick, you were homosexual, the consequences were dire. Besides all these above points have to highlight one of the merits of the film. Today it is very common to see productions where homosexual love shown factly. But at that time the most common reaction to these scenes was strong hatred and repulsion
