Angels in Philadelphia
For the last three days, the third hour and sixth hour sociology classes I'm a part of at my high school have been watching the movie Philadelphia. You know, that movie from 1993 starring Denzel Washington as a homophobic lawyer who defends a gay man with AIDS after he was fired from his job for being sick?
I'd never seen it before and, honestly, I was only partly paying attention because those classes aren't classes I teach (yet, at least), so I was getting other work done, but I was tuning in and every now and again and was kind of blown away. Not by the acting, though I think both Hanks and Washington did a great job, but how different I think the world is now then it was then, less than twenty years later.
I mean, there's no doubt that gays and lesbians and the queer community in general still have it tough in many parts around the country. And I do think there's still a stigma attached to HIV and AIDS as being a "gay disease" and a preventable one at that.
But . . . When I was watching Washington's character outright homophobia directly towards Hanks' character, it seemed so hopeless outdated, you know? Which must be a good thing, at least for me, because it means I don't see that kind of thing where I live which, yeah, is a rather liberal area, but still. I was happy at the lack of snickering or homophobic things I heard from the students while they were watching. Third hour, in particular, took the ending really hard, and there were a lot of tears being shed.
But it would be really interesting to think about Philadelphia's story in the context of 2010. If you made that movie today, what would it look like? If you took a gay man and gave him AIDS, how would others react to him? If you were looking for such an outrageous reaction as what the people in this movie had in 1993, would AIDS do it? Is it the ultimate taboo disease? Would the protagonist be gay?
It got me to thinking about marginalized people in our culture, which is good, because it's a sociology class. But who incites fear and outrage now? Gay people? Some places. Muslims? All over the place. Anyone else? Tea Baggers? Liberals? Feminists? Evangelicals?
Yeah. I don't know.
For the record, though, the best movie/mini-series I've ever seen that perfectly encapsulates the poetic drama behind homosexuality, AIDS, God, love, hate, life, death, and Meryl Streep is Angels In America. I mean, take this on as a premise: God, disappointed in the direction humanity has taken, leaves. This creates the great earthquake in San Fransisco. Once he leaves, a plague is allowed to descend: AIDS.
I love Angels in America so hard it hurts. It's huge, sprawling over hours and hours, but I can literally sit down and watch it in one sitting. And be moved to tears every time.
I'd never seen it before and, honestly, I was only partly paying attention because those classes aren't classes I teach (yet, at least), so I was getting other work done, but I was tuning in and every now and again and was kind of blown away. Not by the acting, though I think both Hanks and Washington did a great job, but how different I think the world is now then it was then, less than twenty years later.
I mean, there's no doubt that gays and lesbians and the queer community in general still have it tough in many parts around the country. And I do think there's still a stigma attached to HIV and AIDS as being a "gay disease" and a preventable one at that.
But . . . When I was watching Washington's character outright homophobia directly towards Hanks' character, it seemed so hopeless outdated, you know? Which must be a good thing, at least for me, because it means I don't see that kind of thing where I live which, yeah, is a rather liberal area, but still. I was happy at the lack of snickering or homophobic things I heard from the students while they were watching. Third hour, in particular, took the ending really hard, and there were a lot of tears being shed.
But it would be really interesting to think about Philadelphia's story in the context of 2010. If you made that movie today, what would it look like? If you took a gay man and gave him AIDS, how would others react to him? If you were looking for such an outrageous reaction as what the people in this movie had in 1993, would AIDS do it? Is it the ultimate taboo disease? Would the protagonist be gay?
It got me to thinking about marginalized people in our culture, which is good, because it's a sociology class. But who incites fear and outrage now? Gay people? Some places. Muslims? All over the place. Anyone else? Tea Baggers? Liberals? Feminists? Evangelicals?
Yeah. I don't know.
For the record, though, the best movie/mini-series I've ever seen that perfectly encapsulates the poetic drama behind homosexuality, AIDS, God, love, hate, life, death, and Meryl Streep is Angels In America. I mean, take this on as a premise: God, disappointed in the direction humanity has taken, leaves. This creates the great earthquake in San Fransisco. Once he leaves, a plague is allowed to descend: AIDS.
I love Angels in America so hard it hurts. It's huge, sprawling over hours and hours, but I can literally sit down and watch it in one sitting. And be moved to tears every time.