At the time of Philadelphia’s release in 1993, AIDS held a stigma – “Misinformation, paranoia, and prejudice abounded.” (The-artifice.com, 2016) For those not infected it was something to avoid, and was stereotypically linked with homosexuality, “in the mind of conservative America, this disease, which destroys the body’s ability to resist infection, came to represent the scourge of urban squalor.” (The-artifice.com, 2016) The film is directed by Jonathan Demme, whose previous film was The Silence of the Lambs (1991). Philadelphia is a story about a lawyer, Andrew Beckett (Tom Hanks), who hides his homosexuality and HIV diagnosis in fear that it would affect his career, but when a colleague spots the symptoms and Beckett’s secret is exposed he is fired from the company. Our protagonist reacts by suing due to discrimination with the help of fellow lawyer Joe Miller (Denzel Washington). As this would become one of the first mainstream Hollywood films to address homosexuality and AIDS; the heterosexual gaze, something Steve Seidman discussed, is interesting to explore. As this assumes the audience is straight, and the film was directed by a heterosexual male, it is worth investigating whether this film was made for the heterosexual gaze at the time, censoring homosexuality or whether it attempts to shift opinions.
Philadelphia opens with a sequence depicting the everyday goings on within the city, a camera cuts to a shop named “Condom Nation”, perhaps a play-on-words for condemnation, suggesting that this film may shock you, or push boundaries. There is also a shot of the liberty bell which is an iconic symbol of independence and freedom, therefore painting an image of America which a heterosexual audience would have felt apart of and would subconsciously identify with whilst watching. This symbol obviously becomes ironic as the story unfolds and we witness the judgement, and lack of freedom Andrew Beckett faces. However, it is very important to consider Tom Hanks casting in the film, an actor who was “well on his way to becoming Hollywood’s human embodiment of the wholesomeness of Middle America.” (The-artifice.com, 2016) Previously starring in light-hearted comedy and fantasy films such as Splash (1984) and Big (1988) gained him popularity with American audiences. Perhaps Demme cast Hanks because if he takes on a serious role, the audience will reciprocate, taking him and the subject matter seriously. On the other hand, if Hanks had not been cast, would the heterosexual audiences have been so emotionally involved, or even gone to see the film altogether. Or more so without Hanks’ name or mainstream tag, would it have received the Academy Award success. When Andrew Beckett is introduced, Hanks and Washington are having a meeting about skyscraper developments. Beckett states at the beginning that he is pro building a skyscraper in the city as he doesn’t want Philadelphian's losing jobs; Demme seems to be building the perfect American who also later, while in court defending himself, states “I love the law!” (Philadelphia, 1993) Suzanna Danuta Walters states “Boy-next-door Tom Hanks would be the perfect actor to make homosexuality safe, accessible, and unthreatening”. (Walters, 2001, p.138) Consequently showing how Demme builds a homosexual man who the heterosexual audience could develop empathy for.
Suzanna Danuta Walters states that “no film so illustrates the “paradox of visibility” as the 1993 hit film Philadelphia”, she continues to discuss how the film was “marketed as a “straight” film about AIDS” with the gay man being played by heterosexual star Tom Hanks, “his male lover was marginalized (and played by another straight man, heartthrob Antonio Banderas).” (Walters, 2001, p.137) Walters also talks about how the film depicts its villains and heroes in “black-and-white terms”, the “homophobic corporate lawyers vs. the loving and accepting family members.” (Walters, 2001, p.137-8) This stereotype rang false to the gay community as it was often their families who treated them with hatred and abandonment, consequently the “absence of any gay culture or gay politics” seems apparent. (Walters, 2001, p.137-8) Additionally, Beckett’s relationship to his partner Miguel in Philadelphia is worth examination – Dustin Bradley Goltz claims that the film creates identification with “dominant values…presenting a homosexual community that is deeply invested in…family values, and heterosexual relationship models.” (Goltz, 2011, p.87) We are told Hanks’ character is gay, indeed we see his Spanish boyfriend played by Antonio Banderas; however there is a lack of believability surrounding their love story. Their intimate moments on screen together are few; in fact there is very little shared screen time between the two actors. Melanie Kohnen states that the film “tells viewers that Andy and Miguel are in a long-term relationship, but the film never shows this.” (Kohnen, 2017, p.88) She continues to discuss that the “only scene that would have shown viewers that Andy and Miguel have affection for one another was edited out of the final version of the film.” (Kohnen, 2017, p.88) The deleted scene shows the couple talking in bed about the events that have taken place throughout their day; inevitably feeling as though Demme has pampered any sexual chemistry between the two of them, to avoid audience members, at the time, finding it distasteful. However, as the director was also straight it reflects his own heterosexual gaze by not wanting to include it himself, “Philadelphia envisioned a desexualized…gay man…and a homophobic lawyer as point of identification.” (Walters, 2001, p.138).
Denzel Washington’s character, Joe Miller, is chief within the plot, essentially he is a walking heterosexual gaze. The first time we hear Beckett say he has AIDS out load to another person, this being Miller, Joe drops the handshake immediately and backs away into the corner of the room. He doesn’t know how to address the topic, portraying ignorance and stereotype. In this scene, the cinematography becomes quintessential; the camera acts as an eye. Just as Miller looks, we look at everything Beckett touches. This is the perfect example of the heterosexual gaze, as the majority of audience members, at the time, would have looked at an AIDS patient this way. We see this again when Beckett gets fired in the meeting room, and the board sit on the other side of the room to Hanks’ character. The scene where Miller is helping his wife set up dinner is another great example of how the character is prehistoric in his thoughts. Stating “I’m prejudice, I don’t like homosexuals” and “I wouldn’t wanna be in bed with anybody who is stronger than me, or has more hair on their chest than I do, now you can call me old fashioned, you can call me conservative, just call me a man.” (Philadelphia, 1993) However, he makes a turning point when he decides to defend Beckett in court. Although he still remains somewhat conservative in his views, he progresses. When going round to Beckett’s apartment he drinks coffee from his mugs and when Hanks’ character is rushed into hospital, Miller visits and helps re-adjust his oxygen mask, touching his face. During one of the court scenes, Denzel faces the jury, but talks into the camera, so convincingly it is as if he is trying to convince us; we become the jury. Miller is asking us to take a side as well as doing a fantastic job at convincing us that stereotypes exist. Maybe Demme is proving that it is as much Millers journey than Beckett’s and as Miller is the heterosexual gaze, perhaps the film is successful in shifting certain prejudice assumptions with audience members. Kohnen has spoken on the topic voicing “Philadelphia addresses a “general” audience and purposefully tires to engage viewers that may have shied away from dealing with the subject of HIV/AIDS and the LGBTQ community.” (Kohnen, 2017, p.91) Consequently, if they can see a conservative American sympathising with an AIDS patient, they can do the same. Kohnen also states that “Director Jonathan Demme mentions this goal as a reason for the decision to downplay the intimacy between Andrew and Miguel.” (Kohnen, 2017, p.91)
In conclusion, Demme’s Philadelphia shows aspects of obtaining the heterosexual gaze; Joe Miller is quite literally the ‘straight’ audience in his conservative American views. Not only does he openly admit to being prejudice, he states what he thinks it is to be an American man. With the camera’s POV shots we are guilty as charged, mimicking the characters glances. Although the camera forces us to look at everything Beckett touches; there is no denying, during the early nineties, that the majority of people would inevitably look in the same way. AIDS was terrifying. By using two heterosexual men to play the gay characters in the film it almost conceals a ‘safe’ homosexual portrayal, and the lack of intimacy between them acts as a contributing factor to the censorship of any homosocial behaviour. However, the film’s original song is also worth shortly mentioning, written and performed by Bruce Springsteen, “Streets of Philadelphia” tugs on the heart strings with its emotive lyrics – “I was unrecognizable to myself”; “Saw my reflection in a window and didn’t know my own face”; “At night I could hear the blood in my veins, it was just as black and whispering as the rain”; “Ain’t no angel gonna great me” and “my clothes don’t fit me no more, a thousand miles, just to slip this skin” creates intense imagery that would have touched not only film audiences but music listeners too (Springsteen, 1994). Finally, Denzel Washington’s character does go on a ‘journey’ of sorts. Beginning the film with a very narrow-minded perception of HIV/AIDS, he ends the film with a respect for his client; perhaps Demme is implying that no change in the early nineties would have taken place drastically, but people can start somewhere.
REFERENCES:
The-artifice.com. (2016). Philadelphia and AIDS: Looking Past the Pedantry | The Artifice. [online] Available at: https://the-artifice.com/philadelphia-aids-tom-hanks/ [Accessed 3 May 2018].
Philadelphia. (1993). [film] Directed by J. Demme.
Walters, S. (2001). All the Rage: The Story of Gay Visibility in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kohnen, M. (2017). Queer Representation, Visibility, and Race in American Film and Television. [S.I.]: Taylor & Francis.
Goltz, D. (2011). Queer Temporalities in Gay Male Representation. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis.
Springsteen, B. (1994). Streets of Philadelphia.
