Recently, I watched the movie Philadelphia, which was directed by Jonathan Demme in 1993. Mr. Demme has won an oscar, directed over fifty films, including Silence of the Lambs. He also was/is a big proponent of informing citizens about gay rights and the effects of HIV/AIDS. This movie is about a lawyer (named Andrew Beckett), who is gay and has HIV. In the beginning of the storyline he does all that he can to hide these aspects about himself, but a colleague of his notices the one symptom of HIV (lesions), and Andrew is promptly fired (through told it was because of mishandling of paperwork). He in turns attempts to sue the law firm for discrimination and is helped by Joe Miller, a personal injury lawyer. But it is very apparent that Miller
…show more content…
First off, legal precedent from prior cases is very important. When Andrew is in the library looking up information about how he might proceed if he ends up defending himself, he explains to Joe Miller that through a law created (I believe) around twenty years before the time this movie takes place says you can not be fired for disability. But, AIDS counts in that realm due to other cases that have been tried in courts around the nation. These cases give Andrew a real chance in getting his case heard in court, and without them, he would have had an even steeper up-hill battle to …show more content…
Even though it has been many years since it was first put into theatres, it still has a great deal of relevance with current times, which I find interesting and made me enjoy it more. Additionally, I admire the courage those who worked on this movie had, as at the time it was still a taboo subject, especially since it was made only around ten years after AIDS was identified. One aspect that really set forth the movie also is that the director was very talented about balancing the “action” of the courts with the juxtaposed “emotional” aspects, like including the gay party and the attachment felt by the audience to Andrew’s partner. Also, the movie had a bit of a personal effect for me, as my uncle is gay and living with HIV. Even though it was not formed into AIDS, he has had difficulty in his life dealing with people that are against him and his way of life, and also the health and emotional consequences of the disease, so I did understand Andrew a bit in this way. All in all, I found this movie interesting as a view into our court system (through as expected everything is most likely not precisely accurate), and I would recommend it to
First off, legal precedent from prior cases is very important. When Andrew is in the library looking up information about how he might proceed if he ends up defending himself, he explains to Joe Miller that through a law created (I believe) around twenty years before the time this movie takes place says you can not be fired for disability. But, AIDS counts in that realm due to other cases that have been tried in courts around the nation. These cases give Andrew a real chance in getting his case heard in court, and without them, he would have had an even steeper up-hill battle to …show more content…
Even though it has been many years since it was first put into theatres, it still has a great deal of relevance with current times, which I find interesting and made me enjoy it more. Additionally, I admire the courage those who worked on this movie had, as at the time it was still a taboo subject, especially since it was made only around ten years after AIDS was identified. One aspect that really set forth the movie also is that the director was very talented about balancing the “action” of the courts with the juxtaposed “emotional” aspects, like including the gay party and the attachment felt by the audience to Andrew’s partner. Also, the movie had a bit of a personal effect for me, as my uncle is gay and living with HIV. Even though it was not formed into AIDS, he has had difficulty in his life dealing with people that are against him and his way of life, and also the health and emotional consequences of the disease, so I did understand Andrew a bit in this way. All in all, I found this movie interesting as a view into our court system (through as expected everything is most likely not precisely accurate), and I would recommend it to