What did you think of Philadelphia (1993)?
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — LGBT Film
RynoII — 5 years ago(April 10, 2020 12:34 AM)
I just saw the movie with my gf and she loved it. I feel that it was very strange though, just the way the whole thing was written or directed, something seemed off. I feel that the director, Jonathan Demme, directed it very much the same as The Silence of the Lambs, in fact too much alike.
That kind of directing style worked for Silence of the Lambs, cause it's a psychological horror movie, but hear he has the same style with dead on face shots in extreme close up, after actors looking into the camera intensely a lot.
He even re-uses the shot, in Silence of the Lambs, when Clarice Starling is approaching the coffin in slow motion and shoots it the same way, accept here, it's Beckett's friend approaching the bathroom to see why is is throwing up. Why did the director re-use the same shot, for a completely different context, when it doesn't seem to work the same?
Even the opera scene goes on for questionably long with Beckett in this psychological state, that seemed overdone, unless it's just me?
Just not sure it worked for this one. The music is even more eerie and operatic sounding than it should be for a court case drama it seems.
I feel that the court case was oddly handled, with the attorneys asking the attestants questions that don't seem like questions they would ask, but are being asked for obvious drama reasons. Like when ever a witness is on the stand, Miller (Washington), will ask him if he is gay.
Why would a lawyer ask that question, if he does not know the answer, and it just doesn't help the case? That would be like a lawyer, defending someone who is accused of murder, by asking every witness, if they ever murdered anyone. How are remarks like that going to look to a jury?
Also, they never explained why Miller put a witness on the stand, and then asks the witness, if he had anything to do with sabotaging his client into being fired, and the witness kept saying no. It is made clear in the movie, that this witness is Miller's witness, buy why would Miller put a witness on the stand, who is going to deny everything he is trying to proof? It didn't make sense to me, unless I missed something?
The opposing attorney, also asks Beckett, questions like who he had sex with in a porno movie theater, back in 85, etc, and if he new what AIDS was. Questions like these have nothing to do with the case, and they never explain why the judge allowed the questions to go on.
I also did not get some of the characters motivations that much and felt that they needed to spend more time on them. There is a guy at the law firm who says that he would regret helping to fire Beckett for the rest of his life, but if he is under such regret, than why did he go along with this decision with the others in the first place. They don't really explain the character change.
There is also the attorney who is opposite of Miller, who at first comes off like a real mustache twirler, cross examining witnesses, with this diabolical smile on her face, but then later on, she said she hates the case, as she is hating what she is doing. Where did this character change come from all of a sudden.
I feel that maybe the movie had to spend more time on this supporting characters, if the writers wanted to give them arcs.
Also, I am surprised Hanks won the Oscar for best actor that year because I felt like was given more of a standard vanilla performance, and nothing more. I mean he had to act emotional for sure, but I think maybe it was standard vanilla, emotional more so, unless I'm wrong. It's not a bad performance, I just didn't see how it's the best of the year, sort of thing. This might not having anything to do with his talent though, but maybe what he had to work with, or the direction he was given.
So did I miss something, and missed why this movie was well liked for it's time, or what do you think of it? -
unex — 5 years ago(April 21, 2020 04:39 AM)
Also, I am surprised Hanks won the Oscar for best actor that year because I felt like was given more of a standard vanilla performance, and nothing more.
AIDS/homosexuality wins Oscars, even more than the Holocaust: Tom Hanks, Philadelphia, 1993; Sean Penn, Milk, 2008; Matthew McConaughey, Dallas Buyers Club, 2013; Rami Malek, Bohemian Rhapsody, 2018. -
ToastedCheese — 5 years ago(March 20, 2021 02:07 AM)
…. I feel that it was very strange though, just the way the whole thing was written or directed, something seemed off. I feel that the director, Jonathan Demme, directed it very much the same as The Silence of the Lambs, in fact too much alike….
Late to the party here, but I agree with what you say. I struggle with
Philadelphia
and I like Demme. It was too heavy-handed, a gay film made for straight people and I think Demme dropped the ball. It was phony!
I do not buy Tom Hanks as this gay lawyer, he grates on me big time here and in hindsight, the entire film is posturing virtue signalling. I also think it would have worked better if Hanks was a school teacher and not a lawyer. It would have grounded the film more.
Norman! What did you put in my tea? -
Premmie — 5 years ago(March 20, 2021 02:20 AM)
There is also the attorney who is opposite of Miller, who at first comes off like a real mustache twirler, cross examining witnesses, with this diabolical smile on her face, but then later on, she said she hates the case, as she is hating what she is doing. Where did this character change come from all of a sudden.
Mary Steenburger looked very ordinary here and also very mousey in Back to Futures. But later she become the MILF, hana