Tom Hanks earned the Best Actor Academy Awards from this movie. Have I told anyone he\’s one of my favorite actor? :P

Anyway, I did this movie analysis for my Philippine Constitution subject. Lame work… :neutral: Really lame.

Philadelphia (1993)

No one would take on his case… until one man was willing to take on the system.

Andrew \”Andy\” Beckett (Tom Hanks), a new law graduate with a lot of potentialities was hired in a firm headed by Charles Wheeler (Jason Robards). Choosing not to tell his mentor at the firm of either his disease or his sexual orientation, Andrew moves forward with his caseload as a senior associate, intending to fulfill his duties for as long as his handicap permits. He has a promising career ahead of him but was inflicted by AIDS. Soon, lesions on his face appeared and his colleagues suspected he acquired AIDS. Many people alleged that Andy got the deadly disease from his gay partner Miguel (Antonio Bandera).

Andy regarded his mentor as role model but the very man he admired fired him out of the firm. He was sabotaged by the company to make his performance below average soon after they discovered his disease. After a while, Andy finally hired a homophobic small time lawyer Joe Miller (Denzel Washington) who helped him get through the case.

Both parties\’ lawyers defended their client skillfully. Joe Miller doesn\’t like homosexuals, but agrees to take the case, mostly for the money and exposure. He appeared in the court with a sense of pride being the lawyer of Andy and he showed confidence within the court room. His tag lines are very witty. They usually elicit the truth behind Andy\’s experience. Generally, this gives Andy an upper hand over the old firm. Later on, the story falls into the familiar patterns of a courtroom confrontation with Belinda Conine (Mary Steenburgen) playing the counsel for the old firm. Her character has no appetite for what is obviously a fraudulent defense, and whispers \”I hate this case!\” to a member of her team.

In this movie, the provisions exposed regarding the rights of the accused were evident. (Art III. Sec.14) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.  There was due process before the firm group was penalized. (Art. III. Sec 16) All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies. There was a speedy and impartial due process of law since it was processed in less than a month.

Basically Andy filed the law suit because he was discriminated. The following rights were neglected in this movie: (Art III. Sec 1) No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. Andy was denied of his job, so he lost his ability to make money and support himself. They cut down his work, his character, and his abilities as an employee. Andy\’s firm does not have any rights to destroy his living. The denial of fair treatment forced Andy to take charge of his old firm. (Art. III, Sec. 17) No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. Some witnesses were bought by firm to support their side. Some evidences were only pretences. Some where made-up ahead of time to protect the firms internal interest so as to shield its reputation from damage. Nonetheless, it was unlawful.

In between court proceedings, the movie gave an impassioned translation of the aria \”La Momma Morta\” of Andy. Bewildered by silence, Joe looked on Andy. Andy expressed his acceptance of death even as he acknowledged his continuing passion for life, and Miller felt fear as he recognizes that his client no longer disgusts him. This scene had made me anxious. It gave me a leap of faith. I felt deeply sorry for Andy because he portrayed a different perspective on the victims of the disease in the real world.

In our country, the Police have to impose power laws to protect the public health, public morals, public safety and general welfare and convenience of the society. Per se, it would be the responsibility of the Police to isolate the HIV positive and AIDS-infected people; however, the Police is limited to providing segregation of these people to keep them from the Public. They may not take the lives of the victim nor completely regard them as risk to the society. They should not be prejudiced. In fact they should encourage these people to take medications to prevent the deadly virus taking over their body. Therefore if the Police would take care of these AIDS afflicted people, the society would benefit at large.

The due process of law was finally finished after several court trials. The case was closed. Andy won the case. The powerful story of Philadelphia gave moral and political lessons that will not immediately vanish into obscurity. It is a great film that everyone should not miss.

:neutral:

Scroll to Top