There were two friends who watched the film first and gave it a bad review. So when you look at it, you have to take a contemptuous attitude. But after watching it, I was very impressed. So a little bit of explanation, if that counts as a response to some extent.
1. Narrative method The narrative method of this
film is actually slightly close to a documentary, with less dramatic elements. The parts that should have been very storytelling, such as how Andrew was fired, and how Andrew's family showed love and love in the face of the deteriorating AIDS Support, and how Attorney Miller transformed from an anti-gay person to an understanding, pro-gay fighter, etc. If these bridges are presented with emotional foreshadowing, this will be a movie similar to "Milk", with an eye-catching climax that drama films are good at.
However, this film basically abandoned this expression, but showed the development of events with an objective time mark. For the parts that have strong appeal, they are also described from a more restrained perspective. A typical family reunion scene was supposed to be very emotional, but here it was shot in a line-drawing style like a street interview. Everyone used fairly simple, everyday words to show support for Andrew's lawsuit.
These simplified and de-emotional expressions are inevitably uncomfortable for viewers who are used to watching drama films or presume that this is a drama film, which is probably the main reason for thinking this film is dull.
2. Court Debates
In the United States, litigation is a common occurrence. But whether the purpose of a lawsuit is for money, for power or for politics, it varies from person to person.
In the interview after the trial, the reporter asked Andrew whether the lawsuit was for the human rights issue of homosexuality? Andrew faced the camera and said I am not political. I just want what is fair, what is right. So the intention of this lawsuit is only that Andrew unfairly fired him after his law firm learned that he was gay and had AIDS appeal, not a show for political purposes.
As a lawsuit for rights protection, the focus is only on 1. Whether there is an infringement fact; 2. If so, how to punish and compensate. Therefore, the part of the trial basically revolved around whether the unfair dismissal of both parties was true, including Andrew's work attitude and ability; whether AIDS affected his normal work; whether the employer realized that he was a homosexual with AIDS before dismissing him ,etc.
The proof of these facts is neither the gorgeous and exciting court debate in the boston legal nor the decisive evidence that often turns around in the good wife or suits, but is closer to the real court, which is full of evidence and details. , simple and trivial.
Just as real-life lawsuits are usually boring, the trial portion of the film is really not that appealing. But the cross-examination of each part has a rigorous logic and interlocking structure, and Andrew's experience is subtly interspersed to give the audience a better understanding of the whole story.
3. The background movie of AIDS
was made in 1993 and adapted from a true story. According to Andrew's statement in the trial that the infection time was 84 or 85 years, then the background of this true story should be between the late 1980s and early 1990s, if Andrew's incubation period is not too short.
AIDS was determined in 1981. For many years after it was determined, it was regarded by anti-gay people as God's punishment for homosexuality, so it has nicknames such as the homosexual plague, which is also reflected in the film. Therefore, during the period when this story took place, although AIDS received a certain amount of attention in medicine, there were still many misunderstandings and prejudices about it in life. Even Foucault, a man so radical and avant-garde, was reluctant to admit that he had AIDS, and kept it secret until his death.
The story unfolds against the background of this menacing and incurable disease. In addition to defending the rights of homosexuals, it also shows how AIDS patients face death and the people around them after being diagnosed. How to deal with relatives and friends after learning that they have HIV.
Undoubtedly, behind the stubborn power struggle, the film's emotional handling of the ultimate problem of living to the death is also quite touching. The most lyrical moments focus on listening to the opera on the eve of Andrew's testimony. As the music develops, Andrew narrates the singing with all his heart. The cherishing of life and the fear and despair in the unknown terminal illness, all kinds of emotions are mixed in the strong and high-pitched singing, which burst out violent and long lamentations.
The lighting of this scene, the transformation of the camera lens, and the coordination with the music are extremely contagious. Especially Hanks' performance, from calm to excited, with his grasp of music, is amazing. It is an acting skill that is generally enough to go down in the history books! That year's Oscar winner was completely worthy of its name.
4. Summary
As a story about the rights of a gay AIDS patient, it can easily become a bitter drama or a political film because of excessive sensationalism or excessive complaints. But this movie doesn't. It precisely grasps the scale between appealing rights and expressing sympathy, and skillfully intersperses and balances them, avoiding the two extremes. Of course, this kind of moderation, which is not strengthened on both sides, also weakens its plot conflict, which makes the audience lose their enthusiasm for watching the movie.
So this is a slow movie with little drama or even a lot of jumps, and you need to be patient with it. Then you will find that it will become a classic, not just because of this sensitive and sensational subject matter.
ps: A 140-word short comment is not enough, so it was written as a thesis. . God, chatter is incurable.
ps and ps: Hanks was so beautiful when he was young! Ouch, his eyes are so sharp, and his son really looks exactly like him!
ppps: Mrs. Antonio Banderas is so beautiful! You are handsome when you are young, and you are handsome when you are old! Mr. Bradley Whitford, I recognized you again by your voice. It turns out that the hairline crisis has already begun at that time, blink~
View more about Philadelphia reviews
